ROMANIA-ISRAEL · 2013-10-16 · Translations: Oana Capidan-Chiriţă (original translation) Carmen Lelia R ăceal ă CIP description of the National Library Romania-Israel. Diplomatic

ROMANIA-ISRAEL 65 YEARS OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

Vol. I

1948 – 1969

THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF

DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS

Series

BILATERAL RELATIONS

Series coordinator

DUMITRU PREDA

Volume coordinator

VICTOR BOŞTINARU

Authors DANIELA BLEOANCĂ NICOLAE-ALEXANDRU NICOLESCU CRISTINA PĂIUŞAN DUMITRU PREDA

Collaborators TEODOR GHEORGHE COSTIN IONESCU CRISTIAN TUDORACHE

This book is the English edition of the volume Romania-Israel. 50 Years of Diplomatic Relations printed in Bucharest, in 2000, by SYLVI Publishing House, Bucharest.

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Department of Diplomatic Archives

ROMANIA – ISRAEL Diplomatic documents

vol. 1

1948 - 1969

Edited by Dumitru PREDA and Victor BOŞTINARU

Bucharest, Bruxelles

2013

Cover: Victor Ilie (original cover)

Iulian Donici

Desktop publisher: Gabriel Ghinea

Illustration: MFA’s Historical Archive

Translations: Oana Capidan-Chiriţă (original translation)

Carmen Lelia Răceală

CIP description of the National Library Romania-Israel. Diplomatic relations, vol. I 1948-1969, Bucharest, Bruxelles, 2013. Edition by Dumitru Preda and Victor Boştinaru

380 p.; 23,05 cm Index ISBN

I. Preda, Dumitru (series coord., author) II. Boştinaru, Victor (volume coord.) III. Millo, Avraham (foreword) IV. Georgescu, Valeriu (epilogue)

V

CONTENTS

• Foreword (Victor Boştinaru) VII

Ambassador Avraham Millo, On the Israeli-Romanian Relations IX

• Introductory Study (Dumitru Preda, Cristina Păiuşan) XI

• Editorial notes XXI

• List of documents XXIII

• Documents 3

Ambassador Valeriu Georgescu, Remembrance 319

• Index 323

• Illustration 331

VI

VII

FOREWORD

On the 14 of May 1948, when The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel

was broadcast onto the world at large – as an act of strong political will coming from an ancient and worthy nation – the mankind as a whole witnessed at the great event, representing a turning point, decisive and final, both in the history of the Jewish nation, and for further evolution of the international relationships.

Now, over the half of century since that essential moment – which established, based on the UNO Resolution, on the 29th of November 1947, the legitimacy of the existence of a modern Jewish state, alongside an Arab state on the Palestinian territory – we can acknowledge that the Jewish nation’s life has been crossing a profound revolution. We have been witnessing, throughout this rather short span of time, a genuine reborn, which has unbound impressive constructive energies, materialized in exemplary and eloquent achievements in every field of activity, social, scientific and cultural.

In spite of a number of difficult and complex historical circumstances, burdened for a long time by the development of the Cold War – with its many implications in the Near and Middle East-through a tenacious and perseverant struggle, in the name of the love for the native land, which has always been and will forever be, in spite 2000 years of wanderings, the fundamental element, Israel has transformed itself into a prosperous country, a country whoever may visit cannot but admire and respect.

For all this, Israel’s hardworking citizens know well that the consolidation of their state cannot take place but inside a stable region, of everlasting, true pace. Unfortunately, the evolution of the events – since the first hours of Israel’s existence - has contradicted this hope, the whole region having been ever since the tragic scene of often violent confrontations, politics becoming a way of expression, by various means, a certain state of war, unproductive for both parties involved.

I should like to remind the reader the words of David Ben Gurion, one of the founders of the State of Israel, words uttered on the 2nd of October 1947, in front of the Assembly of the Jewish Committee in Palestine, words which today are still valid true:

“ In order to develop to the utmost our country we need to have normal relationships with the neighbouring countries – I mean economic, political and cultural relations. We have got many things to offer our neighbours and they, on their turn, have got many things to offer us. This mutual necessity will lead us, in time, to peaceful relationships [...], as free and equal states, onto peace and progress, towards the welfare of our nations, under the aegis of the United Nations”.

Many years ago, a foreign diplomat noticed and with good sound reason, that the force of Israeli reality does not stand in the statics of the present, but especially in the dynamics of the future.

A future both the Hebrews and the Arabs, alongside and together with the international community, have got the duty to build up, overcoming, by wisdom and patience, a historical inheritance, conceptions, attitudes and contradictions, all of them bearing, on many occasions, the stain of blood and the stamp of prolonged human suffering.

The present volume, the first one in a series devoted to Romania’s bilateral diplomatic relationships, represents both a panorama – selective, I accept – over a two decades span of uninterrupted Romanian – Israeli relationships, starting with the moment of the acknowledgement – on the 11th of June 1948 – of the young State and the provisional government led by Ben Gurion and ending with the mutual upgrading of diplomatic representation, on the 17th of August 1969, to the rank of Embassy.

VIII

By the diligence of the staff in the Diplomatic Archives, characterized by the love for truth and an exemplary scientific accuracy, the 204 documents reunited in the present volume, accompanied by ample explanatory notes, offer the reader a much more general image, thus contributing to a better understanding of the geopolitical coordinates of the respective events, circumscribed about the international developments.

What strikingly ensues from the often captivating reading of the volume is the very mutual will of both parties, the will of the politic leaders, but also the constructive action of numerous Romanian and Israeli personalities to continue the dialogue, to overcome and offer solutions, in a mutual interest, to bilateral controversial problems, to promote with courage, dignity and often at the time being a unique vision a relationship which had grown into a privileged one, beyond the differences of politic regime and the pressures coming from abroad.

The presence in Israel of an ever more numerous, year after year, Jewish population of Romanian origin – numbering today around half a million people, who have been contributing their work and creative efforts to building up of the modern Hebrew State – has represented and still represents, beyond any possible doubt, the very link – sensitive and influential at the same time – between two nations and states which have ever know how and are today firmly decided to offer to the bilateral relationships an ever more ascendant course, concrete, specific dimensions, of a large international resonance, measuring up the legitimate aspirations for peace, prosperity, independence, and sovereignty, inside the complex world we all live in.

Victor BOŞTINARU

IX

Ambassador Avraham MILLO

ON THE ISRAELIAN-ROMANIAN RELATIONS: AT THEIR 50 th ANNIVERSARY

The age of 50 in Jewish philosophy is described as the Age of Advice – as a symbol of

maturity. Undoubtedly Israel and Romania have reached the age, the level of maturity and we

enjoy 50 years of unbroken and close relations and cooperation. 50 years of official relations have meant a massive Jewish immigration from this

country to Israel that helped to make Israel the country it is. They also meant a vast human bridge between Israel and Romania and a tremendous asset to both countries.

They have meant sharing know-how and vital experience in almost every sphere of our lives.

Our relations today are characterized by a better understanding of our mutual interests, priorities, sensitivities, abilities; it means also support for Romania’s rightful-natural place in the European structures; and Romania’s support for the Middle East peace process and readiness to contribute from its own recent experience to the success of that process.

At 50, political, economic, cultural and social cooperation is on a steady increase. It’s a dynamic process and it will be maintained by high level visits, by agreements, by the business community by investments and by a creative cooperation on a continuous base and at every level.

At 50, Israel has fulfilled the longest dream in history and Romania is fulfilling its own big dream of democracy and reform.

I wish the government of this country success in leading people to their own promised land of prosperity.

(Speech delivered at the official ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary to Romania-Israel diplomatic relationship).

X

XI

INTRODUCTORY STUDY

The relations between Romania and Israel have, by the nature of things, a relatively short history, only 65 years, their beginning being marked by the official recognition, on June 11, 1948, of the new Jewish State by the Romanian government.

But the relations between the two peoples have a long and eventful tradition, which was amplified within the recent centuries as a result of the increasing presence – especially from the nineteenth century – of the Jewish communities on the Romanian territory, of modern Romania established within 1859-1962 which became fully independent within 1877-1878.

Often this peaceful coexistence – although not without some tension, promptly speculated by hostile forces – resulted in contributions, many of them outstanding, to the overall progress of our society, and manifestations of human understanding and solidarity were a constant and not exceptions.

The dramatic events of the twentieth century, especially those during the two world wars, as well as during the “Cold War” years that followed, have, of course, left their mark, had a sensitive influence on these relationships - including from the state point of view –, and sometimes even caused resentment. But we have reasons to appreciate, without a doubt, that due to constant, mutual endeavours, their course – uncertain at some point – was, however, ascending.

It is imperative to emphasize that the diplomatic relations started, as we have shown, in 1948 – Romania being one of the first countries that recognized and established such relations with the State of Israel – are characterized, in the over 50 years that have since passed, by their continuity, compelling proof of common appreciation and especially political will, overcoming the barrier of different governance regimes, as well as the complications caused by the international crises of the various periods.

I. The Beginnings... Crossroads of civilizations and interests, Palestine was the cradle of the ancient Jewish

state, founded in the tenth century B.C. by unifying the Jewish tribes existing in the region. A century later, it was being divided into two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Judah conquered in 586 B.C. by the powerful Babylon, and Israel, which was also conquered in 722 B.C. by the Assyrian warriors. Subsequently, a new Jewish kingdom, rebuilt after the disappearance of the Babylonian power was to survive until year 70 A.D., when the Roman Empire was founded.

After nearly two millennia of foreign domination (from the Egyptians to the Byzantines and then Ottomans) the dispersion and the wandering to the four corners of the Earth, after going through many and terrible survival trials – culminating in the holocaust during the Second World War - the Jewish people will regain their legitimate right to have, once again, their own independent and sovereign state on the territory of ancient Palestine.

Thus, Decision no. 181 of the United Nations General Assembly, dated November 29th, 1947, supported by the United States of America as well as the Soviet Union – the two Great Powers, to which joined for various reasons, France and other 30 countries (including Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Belarus), 13 of them voting against (the Arab States, Greece and India), and another 10 abstaining from the vote) stipulated the establishment, no later than October 1st 1948 of two independent states, one Israeli state with an area of 14,100 km2 (55% of the British Palestine’s territory) and one Arab state with a surface of 11,500 km2. The two countries were to be linked by a customs union, to have a common currency, a common administration for railroads, post, telegraph, a joint economic council and the freedom of transit and visas was to facilitate the economic and social cohesion and to ease the cooperation between them. The city of Jerusalem and its surroundings (0.65% of the

XII

Palestinian territory) were being declared as International area administered by the U.N. through a Board of Guardianship. After 10 years, a referendum was supposed to determine the future of the historical city. You must know that at the time, the region was inhabited by over 1.8 million people, out of which only 645,000 being Jewish, the rest of them being Arab Muslims. According to the statistics, the territory assigned to the future Israeli state – three long narrow strips of land, but the most fertile in the area, with narrow bridges of contact was populated by 546,000 Jews and 350,000 Arabs.

Great Britain, which since 1922 – by the decision of the League of the Nations – had the mandate over Palestine, as protective power, abstained from voting, the authorities from London justifying that they couldn’t support a plan for dividing Palestine that had not been accepted by the Arabs or by the Jews.

As a matter of fact, for the two and a half decades that the British mandate lasted, the policy pursued by the offices in London, either conservative, or labour or union, was characterized by contradictory measures which dissatisfied both parties now - in 1947 – in conflict. Since the famous “Balfour Declaration” dated November 2nd, 1917, which had stipulated the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people – the first international recognition of the historical rights of the Jewish people in Palestine-, the measures taken here (also known as the “white papers” policy – there’s three of them), although inconsistent and sometimes restrictive, had stimulated – nevertheless – the Jewish immigration to the country of origin. Thus, if in 1922 out of the 757,182 inhabitants registered in Palestine only 83,794 were Jewish, within the next 17 years the number of those settled here, especially after 1933, has exceeded 300,000 (over 150,000 coming from Germany).

The increasingly tenacious actions of the Jewish Agency for Palestine (Sohnut) and of the World Jewish Congress from Geneva, to promote the idea of creating its own state entity, have determined the British government, towards the end of the 30’s, to form a Royal Commission, having the mission to study the problems related to the possible division of Palestine between the Arabs and the Jewish. Since the project was rejected from the start by the first, a conference was convened in London within February-March 1939 with the representatives of the two communities, who were met separately.

Facing the completely opposed positions expressed by them, under the impact of increasingly threatening external events, that were soon to lead to the beginning of the second world conflagration, Neville Chamberlain’s office was quick to announce that, within 10 years, there was to be the founded an independent Palestinian state, with proportional representation of the two populations in its governmental bodies.

The prohibitive measures on farmland sales to Jewish becoming more severe, as well as limiting the Jewish immigration to 75,000 people for the next five years – taken by London under the pressure of the Arab leaders – have, in those complex circumstances, given a strong blow to the Zionist movement that fought for obtaining the free right to immigrate to Palestine, with the purpose of saving their countrymen from the Europe occupied by the Axis’ powers.

These are the difficult times that the Israeli defence force Haganah proved itself more and more visibly, the immigration saga within 1939-1945 taking place at the same time with the fight of the tens of thousands of volunteers enrolled, in the British units against Hitler’s Germany.

But after the war, facing the new labour party’s inability to find a new solution for the serious contradictions from Palestine, as well as from the other provinces of the declining empire, and despite its efforts to preserve the Crown’s economic and political interests in the Near and Middle East, by advancing in the forefront the Arab League, created in March 1945, the leaders of Israel’s independence movement continued the battle, this time even against the Metropolis.

XIII

Their political efforts were supported by the new leadership of the American Administration and, perhaps surprisingly, by Moscow. During the war, I. V. Stalin began to show a greater openness to the Jewish community from the U.S.S.R. He was hoping to obtain the financial support from the Jewish Diaspora for post-war reconstruction of the country. Later on, since he didn’t obtain what he wanted, he changed his attitude. There’s also the fact that the Russian leaders were, of course, eager to see their former British ally leave as fast as possible its strategic positions along the vast frontiers of the U.S.S.R. Therewith, they were hoping that, through the tens of thousands of communists and communist sympathizers already in Palestine or about to go there, they would be able to create and consolidate an internationalist action base, which would influence the change of the feudal regimes in the Arab countries and, thus, expand the Soviet control in the area.

Therefore, in the context created by the end of the world conflagration and by the struggle to re-divide the spheres of influence, the extension of the British mandate was regarded both by the U.S.A., as well as by U.S.S.R. as impossible, which explains the consensus between the two Great Powers in relation to the Palestinian issue.

Their attempts to achieve a certain rapprochement between the Jews and the Arabs proved to be in vain shortly after adopting the Resolution from November 1947, the situation in Palestine is getting significantly worse at the beginning of the following year. The Arab Higher Committee had already informed, on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs – the U.N. Special Commission that “they have never recognized the validity of the division or the United Nations’ authority to apply it”, adding that any attempt to form any Jewish state would be considered an “act of aggression”.

On May 14, 1948, when the British mandate over Palestine was supposed to end, given

that the Security Council, at the U.S. proposal, was to debate the project of creating a temporary guardianship system, the members of the National Jewish Council proclaimed the founding of the independent State of Israel, a fundamental act of political will. The next day, U.S. President Harry Truman was recognized the provisional Israeli government led by David Ben Gurion, and two days later the U.S.S.R. Government did the same, with a huge echo in the world-wide public opinion.

A year later, on May 11, 1949, Israel was becoming full member of the United Nations Organization.

Meanwhile, the reaction of the neighbouring Arab states was prompt, their military intervention causing the first Arab-Israeli war (1948-1949), ended with the armistice agreements from Rhodes (1949) which reported the extension of Israel’s borders by another 6,700 km2.

Romania, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs proceeded accordingly, on June 11, – as mentioned before – by notifying in Tel Aviv its decision to establish official relations with the State of Israel and to develop friendly relations with it. Soon, two governments successively gave their approval for accrediting the first diplomatic representatives: January 12, 1949, Reuven Rubin, a native from Romania, who presented his letters of credence as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to academician Constantin I Parhon, Chairman of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly, and in the fall, on September 21, 1949, with the same rank, Nicolae Cioroiu submitted the documents to President Chaim Weizmann. It was a start, with many challenges ahead, but also with encouraging prospects on many levels, Bucharest being, especially after 1958, Israel’s European diplomatic reference pole. The proof will also be consolidated by the value of the representatives sent here to support its interests, starting with Ehud (Yehouda) Avriel, the second minister accredited in 1950.

XIV

Therefore, we believe that publishing their reports and notes will be particularly useful both for through study of the bilateral relations, as well as for being aware of Romania’s national and international situation back then.

II. The influence of the “Cold War”, 1948-1958 During the first decade after their establishment, the Romanian-Israeli relations were to

be substantially influenced by the “Cold War” atmosphere and the evolution of the world-wide power relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. and especially in the Eastern Mediterranean region and in the Middle East.

Here, in the early ‘50s, under the circumstances of a power vacuum occurrence, and a significant reduction of Great Britain and France’s presence, the two super-Powers (in the making) engaged in a violent confrontation at all levels, in order to achieve strong and lasting positional advantage. Therefore, each focused mainly on one of the two camps in constant conflict, marked by violent armed confrontations: 1948-1949, 1956 – the war in the Sinai Peninsula.

Thus, after initially having favoured ties with Israel, hoping to expand its control by way of militants and leftist sympathizers, starting 1952, amid anti-Semitic national measures, Moscow grants massive, multilateral assistance to the Arab states. Temporary interruption of diplomatic relations at the beginning of 1953 – after the bombing of the U.S.S.R. Embassy in Tel Aviv – was coupled with an intense and virulent anti-Israeli propaganda campaign, later extended in the 70’ and ’80, which of course marked the conduct of the satellite countries, including Romania’s for a short period of time.

Truman Administration – strongly marked by the ideological-strategic coordinates of the global conflict with the Soviet Union – focused its attention, under the impulse of the strong Zionist financial circles, toward supporting Israeli resistance against the “Islamic alliance”. The American material assistance was continued, intensified and diversified during the new Eisenhower Administration.

Simultaneously, between 1950 and 1955, there is an increase of deliveries of weapons and military equipment by France, despite the restrictions in this regard stipulated in the agreement that was signed in 1951 by France with the U.S.A. and the Great Britain. Moreover, the involvement of the French army, together with the Great Britain, in the “Suez channel crisis” from 1956, was to produce a certain detachment of Washington’s diplomacy towards its Western partners, followed somewhat surprisingly by the activation of the Soviet-British dialogue, although, during the war in Sinai, the U.S.S.R. had openly supported Egypt.

In this context, it must be emphasized that Romania – being in the line with the UN

resolutions – did not stop its dialogue with the Israeli government, although at one point there was a noticeable detachment in the bilateral relations, which also resulted in lowering the diplomatic representation level for the Chargé d’affaires ad interim between 1951 (1952) and 1957. Its main cause was the different attitude towards the emigration of the Jewish minority from Romania to Israel, sore point in the relations between the leaders of the two countries, which has resulted in polemical accents, including within the international bodies.

The circulation of the Jewish population towards Palestine, begun during the interwar period and continued during World War II*)1, was to be intensified with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. The communist authorities from Bucharest, which initially sought to give an acceptable response formulated officially by Ben Gurion government, but soon, also

*) See the volume Emigration of the Jewish population from Romania within 1940-1944. Collection of documents from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, edition by Dr. Ion Calafeteanu (responsible), Nicolae Dinu and Teodor Gheorghe, Bucharest, 1993.

XV

due to Kremlin’s directives, they would oppose massive emigration. This is also due to the constant conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, regarding the location of the immigrants from Europe in the Palestinian territories occupied by the Israeli forces after the war from 1948, situation assessed as a violation of the U.N. resolutions. In addition, the Arab States and the U.S.A. protested repeatedly by drawing attention to the danger of “communizing Palestine” with the Jewish population coming from the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern European countries. The tension caused to the bilateral relations was emphasized in the Israeli leaders’ publicly stated positions, as well as in the diplomatic correspondence, being reflected in the era’s media at length.

Back to the crisis at the end of 1956, we should mention that ever since that time, considering Romania’s good relations with Egypt, the Israeli party questioned through diplomatic channels the leaders from Bucharest regarding the possibilities of a mediation action with President Nasser’s Government, for direct and immediate peace negotiations with it. Although it did not consider the Israeli request, Romania got more and more involved in the regional affairs, turning slowly within the ‘60s-‘70s in a discreet and effective mediator of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Meanwhile, the Romanian government proved malleability in treating the immigration issues, which was promptly notified and appreciated as such by the Israeli authorities, as evidenced by the letter of Walter Eytan, the C.E.O. of the M.F.A., sent on September 23, 1956 to the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “It is a great encouragement for me to receive confirmation from you that the government of the Popular Republic of Romania joined the policy allowing emigration to Israel of the people wanting to bring their families together, [...] I can assure you that every act from your government in this direction will be received with deep satisfaction by the people from Israel and, more than anything else, will improve the relations between our countries” .

Towards the end of this first period, economic factors materialized in the growth of trade exchanges under the cooperation agreement from 1954, renewed in 1957, as well as some contacts, still modest, in the cultural and scientific fields, have shown trends of normalization of the Romanian-Israeli relations, anticipating a positive course that could only be to the benefit of both parties.

III. From dialogue to cooperation, 1959-1969 Given the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Romania during 1958, partial easing of

the international relations, promoted both by Eisenhower Administration, as well as by Moscow’s new team under the leadership of Nikita S. Khrushchev, the policy of the Romanian government was oriented towards liberalization and expanding the relations with the Western countries, also developing the relations with countries from Africa, the Middle East and the Far East, which would create conditions favourable to a new, positive development in the Romanian-Israeli relations.

The inauguration, shortly after, of a foreign policy, more and more independent from the leading centre of the “socialist camp”, as well as the obvious affinities and aspirations of the two parties to define their own conduct internationally, which would consolidate their positions in relation to their partners, the role played by the growing number of Romanian citizens of Jewish origin settled in Israel – significantly highlighted by the rich and varied content of the documents included in this volume – were all factors that apparently marked a slow but steadily continue rapprochement between the two countries.

The goodwill attitude shown by the Romanian authorities in relation to solving a larger number of the emigration applications – promptly noticed by the Western political circles – would be openly recognized by the Israeli side. Thus, on March 3, 1959, during the

XVI

presentation of his letters of credence, Minister Shmuel Bendor mentioned: “My government welcomes the Popular Republic of Romania’s Government’s humanitarian attitude on the issue of reunification of separated families, attitude which is deeply appreciated and draws general sympathy in Israel”. And the new minister Katriel Pessach Salmon, two years later – April 14, 1961, after saying that “in the pioneering tradition that created my country, a special place is occupied by the first founders of the agricultural settlements, who came from Romania more than three generations ago”, also expressed his confidence in the consolidation of the relationships, “especially in the economic and cultural sector”.

The well-known Declaration of the Romanian authorities regarding the foreign policy of Romania from April 1964 proved the tendency of revaluating own diplomacy, consolidated the constant support of the national interests in foreign policy.

During the summer of the same year, 1964, on the occasion of receiving the Chargé d’affaires ad interim of Romania, Golda Meir, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, emphasized the great attitude of Romania’s government towards his country, which with small exceptions was constant, as well as the favourable international echo of its diplomatic approaches, was sharing – resuming an older idea – the desire for his cabinet to propose mutual raising of the diplomatic representatives to the level of embassies and to support the Romanian initiatives for the development of its economic and political relations with the Western countries.

Although during these years there have been very few direct high-level meetings between the two countries, bilateral relations, as well as cooperation in various international organizations have developed constantly.

A reference, key moment for the Romanian-Israeli relations was certainly the 6-day war from 1967. Proving lucidity and assessing correctly the hostilities’ character, Romania was the only country in Eastern Europe that did not break relations with Israel. The Romanian diplomacy proved in that context its power through the steps taken using balance, consideration and perseverance, imposing itself through constructive conduct, eloquently defined by the Prime Minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer’s speech, given on June 23, 1967, within the Extraordinary Session of the UN General Assembly “Romania proved courage, dignity, personality and independence” in the conflict from the Near East – was saying, among others, the future U.S. President Richard Nixon. Countless other documents, including diplomatic, confirm the ample and international resonance of Romania’s equitable attitude, received proudly by Eshkol government and praised by numerous personalities, by the Israeli public opinion.

Along with our country’s position, this volume’s documents shed light on the existence

of the differences of opinion between Bucharest, Moscow and the other communist capitals, the controversies related to the possible exclusion of Romania from the Warsaw Treaty, especially after failing to participate at the high-level conference of the countries signatory of the Declaration from Moscow (July 1967) from Budapest, which had strongly condemned the “Israeli aggression”.

Romania’s position towards the Arab-Israeli conflict would be still on the U.N.’s line of resolutions, particularly the Resolution from November 21, 1967, to the elaboration and adoption of which it had a major contributing. These documents stated the principles of peaceful settlement of the crisis, they were in favour of withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occupied territories, cease of the hostile status and recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all the states in the region, also demanding the resolution of the Palestinian population’s problems in accordance with its legitimate aspirations and interests. The only reservation expressed by the Romanian delegation to the UN was the one related to the claims of certain Arab States to be appointed a custodian of the

XVII

United Nations which would be responsible for the former Arab properties located in Israel, believing that such requests contravened the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state.

Facing accusations and pressures from its Eastern allies as well as from the Arab states, Romania maintained its line of conduct. This has consolidated the Romanian-Israeli mutual trust and cooperation, the Bucharest-Tel Aviv diplomatic axis, both countries supporting the need to improve the role of small and medium-sized countries in solving international problems, in building new relationships between states by respecting the equality, independence and sovereignty of each one of them. Consequently, Israel supported along with most of the Member States the candidacy of the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Corneliu Mănescu, elected in September 1967 as President of the XXIInd Session of the UN General Assembly.

Based on the above, the progress of bilateral relations was to reach notable achievements in the near future, politically, economically, culturally and from point of view of relationships.

From a political standpoint, after the discussions with Corneliu Mănescu and Abba Eban, from June 1968 it was recorded the first visit of a diplomatic leader from the socialist countries to Israel, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, followed in December by the presence in Bucharest of Gideon Rafael, CEO of M.F.A. of Israel. A special impression was generated by the visit of the Finance Minister, Pinhas Sapir, to Romania and the conclusion of the Economic and Technical-Scientific Cooperation Agreement (May 1967), followed by the visit of the Minister of Foreign Trade, Gheorghe Cioară, to Israel (December 1967) and the first session of the Intergovernmental Joint Commission, which gave the opportunity to also solve some financial problems. An aviation agreement was also signed under which the company “EL-AL” was granted the right to transport passengers and cargo, to Romania, on routes served by planes belonging to “TAROM”.

The dynamics of the economic exchanges, significantly diversified, experienced significant growth, as shown in the table below:

Year 1966 1967 1968 1969 Export 2 424 5 684 17 009 17 542 Import 2 824 5 523 10 094 14 899 Total (thousands $) 5 248 11 207 20 103 32 441

Also, although a legal framework for cooperation in the cultural field was not

established, the number of tours contracted through managers of some Romanian artistic formations in Israel has increased every year, enjoying a warm welcome and success. Contacts were multiplied between the scientific research institutions of the two countries, especially in the medicine and psychology fields, and briefings and fruitful collaborations were conducted. There have been encouraging developments in tourism, the sport relations and youth organizations. The Israeli-Romanian Friendship Association, founded in 1952, was revived and it contributed more and more to stimulating contacts between the citizens of the two countries.

We can consider August 17th, 1969 the moment of maximum convergence of the

Romanian-Israeli relations, marked by mutual rising of diplomatic representatives at the embassy level in a delicate time for Israel, when the Romanian diplomacy has responsibly assumed the risk of adverse reactions and differences of opinion from the Arab states. “Romania does not see the policy toward Israel from an Arab perspective, she analyzes its

XVIII

relations with the Arab states and Israel in relation to its interests” (George Macovescu), this was the fair conclusion of a diplomacy whose merits in promoting national interests are compelling.

Following this decision, on August 19th, 1969 Minister Valeriu Georgescu presented to President Zalman Shazar his letters of credence as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania in Israel. On the same day, diplomat Raphael Benshalom, also born in Romania, handed to the Chairman of the State Council, Nicolae Ceausescu, his letters of credence for the same position in Romania. Each side expressed their satisfaction for the act completed, guided by wisdom, benevolence and political realism. The speeches given reaffirmed the mutual determination to base the bilateral relations on the principles of national sovereignty and independence, non-interference in internal affairs, equality of rights and mutual benefits.

“The differences between social regimes, cultures, political or philosophical conceptions should not represent a friction factor – said Ambassador Benshalom – on the contrary, they must create a desire among peoples and nations to know and to understand each other better”. President Shazar mentioned in his speech, after highlighting Romania’s contribution to the cause of peace and international cooperation, in front of the officials: “Despite the difficult tests [...] we never got discouraged or lost hope to see this violence end one day, and all the suffering to be replaced by just and lasting peace between us and our neighbours” .

The event produced among the Romanian emigration, approximately 400,000 people, significant actions and positive feedback, as well as “a sense of pride that they were born, raised and trained in our country”.

By emphasizing that Romania’s decision was not determined by circumstances, that it was the result of an objective process of deciding on the relations with the other countries through a “creative interpretation of the concept regarding peaceful coexistence of countries with different social and political systems” the Israeli media noted the contribution of the Romanian Ambassador to stimulating the dialogue, to a better understanding and rapprochement between the two countries and peoples.

After raising the diplomatic representation level between Romania and Israel, against

the unexpected reactions from some Arab states who withdrew their accredited diplomats from Bucharest or disrupted the relations with the Romanian State, as well as the attitudes of the socialist states subordinated to Moscow, claiming that Romania’s gesture “supports the imperialist forces”, undermining the U.S.S.R.’s peace efforts in the Near and Middle East region, the Romanian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was to undertake an extensive action for clarifying its position. The measures taken were within the international general trend to equalize diplomatic representation by way of respect and equal treatment of all states, regardless of their size. As a matter of fact, during the past years the Romanian government had proceeded to raising the level of diplomatic representation with African countries (Ethiopia), Arab (A.R. of Yemen), as well as with Afghanistan, Argentina and Uruguay, and new diplomatic relations were established only at the embassy level.

The instructions sent by the Central of the M.F.A. to its missions abroad indicated the will of the Romanian government to reject any other interpretation or attempt to determine it to change its position, such actions being considered as interference with Romania’s internal affairs. Regretting the decisions made by some Arab states, as well as the malevolent events against it, it was strongly expressed Romania’s sovereign right to develop, according to its own interests, interstate relations; in this context assurances were made that its consistent position towards the Arab countries and the ways to resolve the situation in the Near East, in the spirit of U.N.’s resolutions remained unchanged.

XIX

During the next period, the relations between Romania and Israel have continued to grow, creating a specific path beneficial for both peoples, for the cause of peace and international cooperation. An important role was played by the high-level meetings, the first summit taking place on October 1970, within the jubilee session of the UN General Assembly, between Nicolae Ceausescu, the head of the Romanian state, and Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel.

By maintaining and enhancing an open dialogue both with Israel and with the Arab states, Romania has managed to contribute to the achievement of important steps in the process of conciliation and peace in a neighbouring region – the Near East, to which it is connected by ancient spiritual traditions, and by showing concern and respect for all its inhabitants.

After 1990, the Romanian-Israeli dialogue continued at different levels, the most

important being the visits to Bucharest of Shimon Peres, as minister of Foreign Affairs (1994), then as President of Israel (2010), as well as the presence in Israel of Romanian dignitaries, among which Presidents Ion Iliescu (1991), Emil Constantinescu (2000) and Traian Băsescu (2009).

The second volume on Romanian-Israeli relations will present, of course, a compelling

argument on the Romanian conception and diplomatic action in this geo-strategic area.

Dumitru Preda Cristina Păiuşan

XX

XXI

EDITORIAL NOTES

Writing the history of the relations between Romania and Israel is without a doubt a

very important task for the historiographies of the two countries. This volume, which includes 204 major pieces from the Romanian Diplomatic Archives – unique so far – is meant to put things in motion, offering at the same time investigative and analysis directions not only for bilateral relations within 1948-1969, but also for better knowledge of the development of the situation in the Near and Middle East region.

The documents selected from the funds Israel and Telegrams. Tel Aviv were declassified in strict compliance with the scientific rules, being reproduced in full – with a few exceptions, primarily due to the desire of not repeating them or due to the fact that passages removed and marked with [...] were not reflecting directly the theme of the volume.

Each document has a title that emphasizes the basic idea of the text, as well as elements mentioning the date, place and nature of the document.

The materials are arranged chronologically, in case some of them had missing items, they have been completed and put between the “[ ]”. Also, some of our additions were also put between the “[ ]”, and when we felt the need to specify that they belong to us we indicated it by our.ref. Finally, some grammar interventions were made in order to correct the spelling errors existing in the original texts (copies) or updating them were made tacitly.

The authors broadened the area of primary information from sources published with notes, some of them extensive, on political, diplomatic, military events and personalities, for a more accurate understanding and assessment of Romania’s position in the international context of the era.

The volume includes an introductive study and a dated index put together by Dumitru Preda and Cristina Păiuşan. A total of 14 photos / facsimiles, with explanatory texts, complete the work. We would like to thank the editorial office of “Magazin istoric” magazine for their support in completing the volume, including the illustration.

We would also like to thank for its collaboration the team of “Sylvi” publishing house lead by Mr. Victor Trişcaru, who did everything in their power to publish this first pilot volume of the “Bilateral Relations” series within the collection of Romanian Diplomatic Documents.

Convinced of the usefulness, as well as the difficulties our scientific approach, we wanted to contribute to creating an accurate image of the Romanian diplomatic activity, thus highlighting Romania’s role in the complex strategy of the Near and Middle East region. A role often major and distinct, appreciated in times of crisis – such as 1967 – by the political environments and the international public opinion, which until now has been surprisingly neglected in the reference works published abroad.

*

The English edition of the book, published now at the 65th anniversary of the bilateral diplomatic relations, with the kind support of the Israeli Embassy, will help even more the serious efforts of our colleagues to put in its rightful place, to properly resize the constructive position of our country in solving the crisis situations, the humanitarian problems in the area, in the spirit of the U.N. Charter and by complying with the international laws.

XXII

XXIII

LIST OF DOCUMENTS 1. June [11] 1948, Bucharest TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER,

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, IN WHICH THE LATTER IS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT 3

2. July 3, 1948, Bucharest TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOTH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIONS 4

3. November 13, 1948, Bucharest TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, ON GRANTING ACCREDITATION TO ITS FIRST REPRESENTATIVE IN BUCHAREST 5

4. March 11, 1949, Hakirya LETTER OF MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION 5

5. August 28, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROMANIAN MISSION AND ITS FIRST CONTACTS WITH THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES 9

6. September 26, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF HIS CREDENCIALS 16

7. September 28, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MISSION’S ACTIVITY 18

8. October 14, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON GRANTING THE VISAS TO THE JEWISH CITIZENS FOR EMIGRATION FROM ROMANIA TO ISRAEL 19

9. October 19, 1949, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION 20

XXIV

10. November 5, 1949, Bucharest TELEGRAM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 23

11. November 9, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEETING WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 24

12. November 21, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE TENSION INCURRED IN THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 24

13. November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE LEGATION’S ACTIVITY 25

14. November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONVERSATION WITH MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 30

15. December 8, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAPAM PARTY 34

16. December 8, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS CONVERSATIONS AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY BILATERAL RELATIONS 35

17. December 13, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CONSULATE IN JERUSALEM 35

18. December 20, 1949, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA IN RELATION TO THE MINISTER RUBIN’S RECALL 36

19. January 5, 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CELEBRATION OF THE REPUBLIC’S DAY IN ISRAEL 36

XXV

20. January 11, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI PRESS ON THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION 39

21. January 18, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ECHO AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF RECALLING THE ROMANIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE FROM ISRAEL 39

22. February 5, 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC LIFE IN ISRAEL 40

23. February 11, 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC MISSION’S ACTIVITY 42

24. February 20, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON APPOINTING THE NEW DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST AND BILATERAL RELATIONS 44

25. February 23, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON SUBMITTING A DIPLOMATIC PROTEST TO THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES 44

26. March 4, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 45

27. April 7, 1950, Bucharest TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE BUCHAREST GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER’S ALLEGATIONS IN RELATION TO THE SITUATION OF THE NATIONALITIES COHABITING IN ROMANIA 46

28. April 28 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL 46

29. April 30, 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC LIFE IN ISRAEL 47

30. June [9?] 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ASSOCIATION OF JEWS FROM ROMANIA 51

31. September 9 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWS FROM ROMANIA 52

XXVI

32. September 21, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION

IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ROMANIA 56

33. September 30, 1950, Tel Aviv NOTE OF PAUL DAVIDOVICI, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI PARTIES TOWARDS THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE 57

34. February 15, 1951, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FORWARDING A VERBAL RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI M.F.A. IN REGARD TO CERTAIN ROMANIAN DEBTS 58

35. July 14, 1951, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS 58

36. August 18, 1951, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE VISIT OF DR. FILDERMAN IN ISRAEL 59

37. November 21, 1951, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, ADDRESSED TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE EMIGRATION POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 61

38. March 6, 1952, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON ISSUES RELATE TO BILATERAL RELATIONS 66

39. April 21, 1952, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE ISRAEL’S INTERNAL SITUATION 67

40. May 25, 1952, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE LUNCH ORGANIZED BY THE WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 68

41. July 22, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON THE SOVIET-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 68

42. August 7, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DISCUSSION IN KNESSET ON THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION OF THE FAMILIES FROM ROMANIA 69

43. August 14, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS 70

44. November 10, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS 70

XXVII

45. November 17, 1953, Tel Aviv NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS 71

46. December 20, 1953, Tel Aviv REPORT OF VIRGIL HUTANU, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM ISRAEL 72

47. May 26, 1954, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME ZIONIST LEADERS 75

48. May 28, 1954, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME ZIONIST LEADERS 76

49. June 12, 1954, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT’S POSITION TOWARDS THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS 77

50. July 22, 1954, Tel Aviv NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE BUCHAREST GOVERNMENT IN RELATION TO THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT 78

51. October 14, 1954, Bucharest REPORT OF ENG. MIHAI PETRI, HEAD OF THE ROMANIAN ECONOMIC DELEGATION, ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST TRADE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL 79

52. [September 20, 1955], Bucharest MEETING TRANSCRIPT ON THE OCCASION OF VISIT WITH THE M.F.A. OF ZEEV ARGAMAN, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, IN RELATION TO THE PROGRESS OF THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS 83

53. January 31, 1956, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE IMPACT IN ISRAEL OF THE ROMANIAN FOLK MUSIC CONCERT 84

54. March 16, 1956, Tel Aviv FROM THE GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FOR THE SECOND SEMESTER – 1955, REGARDING THE ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS 85

55. July [4], 1956, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GHEORGHE CHITIC, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH GOLDA MEIR, THE NEW MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 88

56. [December] 1956, Tel Aviv FROM THE GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER – 1956 REGARDING THE ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS 89

XXVIII

57. April 2, 1957, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CAIUS FRÂNȚESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ARIEH HARELL, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 91

58. April 2, 1957, Bucharest NOTE OF CAIUS FRÂNȚESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ACCREDITATION OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 92

59. April 29, 1957, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CAIUS FRÂNȚESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELKANA MARGALIT, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 93

60. May 20, 1957, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CAIUS FRÂNȚESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELKANA MARGALIT, FIRST SECRETARY OF THE ISRAELI LEGATION IN BUCHAREST 94

61. [August 12] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REINTEGRATION OF THE JEWISH FAMILIES 95

62. [August 12] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA CONCERNING THE REINTEGRATION OF THE JEWISH FAMILIES 96

63. [August 14] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF RABBI OF SEFARD CULT FROM ISRAEL AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 98

64. [August 15] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING ASPECTS OF THE SOCIAL LIFE FROM ISRAEL 101

65. [September 12] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST 102

66. [October 26] 1957, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATEOF ISRAEL 104

XXIX

67. December 1957, Bucharest LETTER OF CHIVU STOICA, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, ADDRESSED TO DAVID BEN GURION, PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON THE ISSUE OF REINTEGRATION OF FAMILIES 107

68. January 20, 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POLITICAL CRISIS FROM ISRAEL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 109

69. February 22, 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE ISRAELI POLICY 111

70. October [29], 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH THE DELEGATION OF THE AHDUT HAAVODA PARTY SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS 112

71. December [8], 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK ARTZI, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN THE REGION 114

72. December [10], 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK KORN, PRESIDENT OF H.O.R., REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION FROM ROMANIA 115

73. December [16], 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH GOLDA MEIR, MINI STER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION OF THE ROMANIAN CHURCH FROM JERUSALEM 116

74. May 11, 1959, Damascus REPORT OF THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF ROMANIA IN DAMASCUS ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SITUATION OF EMIGRATIONS TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL 117

75. August 13, 1959, Tel Aviv NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO VASILE DUMITRESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE MESSAGE SENT BY GOLDA MEIR ON THE ISSUE OF FAMILIES’ REUNION 118

76. March 22, 1960, Bucharest FROM THE INFORMATION NOTE SENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO PETRE MANU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIAN IN TEL AVIV, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS 119

77. September 5, 1960, Bucharest NOTE OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE RELATIONS WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL 121

XXX

78. December 31, 1960, Tel Aviv GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 123

79. January 14, 1961, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE OF “HAOLAM HAZE” MAGAZINE REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATEOF ISRAEL 136

80. April 11, 1961, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MĂNESCU, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 139

81. June 13, 1961, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUSTINIAN PATRIARCH WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, ON COMMON ISSUES 140

82. October 18, 1961, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 141

83. December 18, 1961, Bucharest NOTE REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ROMANIA AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL 143

84. March 23, 1962, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE INCIDENTS AT THE BORDER WITH SYRIA 145

85. March 28, 1962, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING RABBI MOSES ROSEN’S VISIT IN ISRAEL 146

86. April 18, 1962, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DUMITRU POPESCU, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, WITH MOSHE AVIDAN, DIRECTOR OF THE EASTERN EUROPE DIVISION WITHIN THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 147

87. January 30, 1963, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF , ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 148

88. June 13, 1963, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SOVIET PROPOSAL FOR DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND FOR SOLVING THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT 150

XXXI

89. July 15, 1963, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 151

90. September 10, 1963, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST 152

91. February 10, 1964, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE USE OF THE JORDAN WATERS AND THE ARAB LEAGUE 153

92. March 7, 1964, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON BILATERAL RELATIONS AND ON SUPPORTING ROMANIA’S CANDIDACY AT THE U.N. CONFERENCE FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 154

93. April 13, 1964, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI-AMERICAN RELATIONS 155

94. June 9, 1964, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, THE NEW ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 157

95. June 10, 1964, Tel Aviv SUMMARY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE PLENARY STATEMENT FROM APRIL 1964 OF THE C.C. OF R.L.P. [P.M.R.] IN THE STATE OF ISRAEL 158

96. August 26, 1964, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ROMANIA AND THE RELATIONS WITH THE OTHER SOCIALIST STATES 161

97. September 3, 1964, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GRIGORE GEAMĂNU, SECRETARY OF THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE EMIGRATION OF THE ROMANIAN CITIZENS TO ISRAEL 163

98. September 3, 1964, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF POMPILIU MACOVEI, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PLANNED VISIT OF THE TEL AVIV MAYOR IN ROMANIA 164

XXXII

99. December 8, 1964, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE JEWISH EMIGRATION FROM ROMANIA AND BILATERAL RELATIONS 165

100. January 20, 1965 Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL CULTURAL EXCHANGES 167

101. February 2, 1965 Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE JEWISH EMIGRATING FROM ISRAEL 168

102. March 12, 1965, Tel Aviv THE TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE THESIS OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY ON THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE AND THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 169

103. February 3, 1966 Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 171

104. February 18, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON RAISING THE REPRESENTATION LEVEL TO EMBASSY 172

105. February 22, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE STATE OF ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP 172

106. February 23, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT ZALMAN SHAZAR AND THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 174

107. March 18, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA 175

XXXIII

108. 26 April 1966, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH AVIEZER CHELOUCHE, DIRECTOR OF THE ECONOMIC DEPARTMENT OF THE M.F.A. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS 176

109. May 6, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING CERTAIN ISRAELI POSITIONS TOWARDS THE SITUATION IN THE REGION AND BILATERAL RELATIONS 178

110. May 20, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 179

111. May 27, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MANESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION 180

112. June 8, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CHIVU STOICA, PRESIDENT OF THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION 182

113. June 18, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI COOPERATION IN TOURISM 183

114. August 7, 1966, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH YOSEF TEKOAH, DIRECTOR GENERAL IN M.F.A. ISRAELI, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 184

115. September 6, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI REQUEST FOR CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM IN NEW YORK 186

116. October 28, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MORDECHAI AVGAR, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON ACCREDITING THE NEW ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE IN BUCHAREST AND RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS 187

XXXIV

117. November 11, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING ISRAELI PERCEPTIONS ON THE EGYPTIAN-SYRIAN MILITARY AGREEMENT 188

118. December 16, 1966, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE SUPPORT BY ISRAEL OF CORNELIU MĂNESCU’S CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDING THE TWENTY SECOND SESSION OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY 189

119. December 17, 1966, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECTOR OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MORDECHAI AVGAR, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ARRIVAL OF THE NEW HEAD OF THE MISSION 191

120. January 19, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE COLLABORATION AND THE CULTURAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES 192

121. January 26, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI CULTURAL EXCHANGES 193

122. February 5, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI REACTIONS TO ESTABLISHING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN ROMANIA AND FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 194

123. 21 February, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IN REGARD TO ROMANIA’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT OF RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES IN THE AREA 195

124. March 21, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ILIE VERDEȚ, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING THE BILATERAL ECONOMIC COOPERATION 196

125. April 4, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DRAFT OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC AGREEMENT 197

XXXV

126. April 13, 1967, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH PINHAS SAPIR, FINANCE MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS 198

127. April 16, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE VISIT OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO BUCHAREST 201

128. May 13, 1967, Jerusalem CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE PROGRESS AND THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 202

129. May 24, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING INCREASING TENSIONS IN ISRAELI-ARAB RELATIONS 205

130. May 25, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ESCALATION OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN INCIDENTS AND MOBILIZATION OF BOTH ARMIES 206

131. June 6, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DAMAGE TO THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH IN JERUSALEM DUE TO THE JORDANIAN-ISRAELI ARTILLERY SHOOTING 207

132. June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 208

133. June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN CONFLICT 209

134. June 12, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI POSITION TOWARDS THE PEACE AGREEMENTS 210

135. June 14, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES FOR NORMALIZING THE INTERNAL SITUATION 211

136. June 15, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM ISRAEL 212

137. June 18, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 213

XXXVI

138. June 19, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL AFTER THE WAR ENDED 214

139. June 20, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY TOWARDS THE CONFLICT WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES 215

140. June 23, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISRAELI REACTIONS TO THE POSITION OF U.S.S.R. AND OF OTHER SOCIALIST STATES TOWARDS THE CONFLICT IN THE NEAR EAST 216

141. July 2, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISRAELI AND FOREIGN COMMENTS TO ROMANIA’S ATTITUDE ON THE ISSUE OF THE NEAR EAST 217

142. July 14, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING CERTAIN ATTITUDES OF THE FOREIGN DIPLOMATS AND OF THE ISRAELI OFFICIALS TOWARDS ROMANIA’S POSITION IN THE NEAR EAST CONFLICT 218

143. July 31, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONVERSATION WITH ABBA EBAN AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 220

144. August 5, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS MEETING WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 221

145. August 9, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ADOPTION BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL OF A PEACE PROGRAM WITH THE ARAB STATES 222

146. August 11, 1967, Tel Aviv THE TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ECHOES OF PRESIDENT TITO’S VISIT TO ISRAEL IN THE ARAB STATES 223

147. August 14, 1967, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE POSITION OF ROMANIA AND OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST 224

XXXVII

148. August 14, 1967, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH GOLDA MEIR, SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE MAPAI PARTY IN ISRAEL, REGARDING THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST 227

149. August 21, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE SITUATION WITHIN THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY 229

150. October 16, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE ESCALATION OF VIOLENT PALESTINIAN ACTIONS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES AND IN ISRAEL 230

151. October 31, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI POLITICAL GROUPS TOWARDS THE RECENTLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES 232

152. December 5, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRISES IN THE MIDDLE EAST 233

153. December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ECONOMIC COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL 234

154. December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO ILIE VERDET, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, ON THE FIRST MEETING OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI JOINT COMMISSION 255

155. December 21, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI PRESS COVERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC NEGOTIATIONS 236

156. December 22, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE BILATERAL ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND ITS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE 237

157. December 23, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION TO THE REGIONAL CRISIS AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES 238

XXXVIII

158. December 29, 1967, Vienna TELEGRAM OF GHEORGHE PELE, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN VIENNA, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ABOUT THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE NEW ISRAELI AMBASSADOR WITH REGARD TO THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL POSITIONS IN THE NEAR EAST CRISIS 240

159. January 9, 1968, Helsinki TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE VANCEA, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN HELSINKI, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ABOUT THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ISRAELI AMBASSADOR WITH REGARD TO ROMANIA AND THE U.S.S.R.’S POSITIONS IN THE NEAR EAST CRISIS 241

160. January 19, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ACTIONS TAKEN FOR SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS AND THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT 242

161. January 20, 1968, Vienna TELEGRAM OF GHEORGHE PELE, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN VIENNA, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE NEAR EAST 243

162. January 23, 1968, Paris TELEGRAM OF VALENTIN LIPATTI, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY TO U.N.E.S.C.O., TO VASILE GLIGA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION IN RELATION TO RESOLVING THE CRISIS FROM THE NEAR EAST 245

163. January 24, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEAR EAST 246

164. January 24, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POLITICAL SOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 249

165. February 2, 1968, Athens TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN EMBASSY IN ATHENS TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT CONCERNING THE U.N. RESOLUTION ON THE NEAR EAST PROBLEMS 249

166. February 11, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES 251

167. February 14, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI REACTION TO THE LATEST ACTIONS OF THE “AL FATAH” ORGANIZATION 252

XXXIX

168. March [1], 1968, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ON THE JARRING MISSION IN THE NEAR 253

169. March 6, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE EVOLUTION OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE NEAR EAST 255

170. March 11, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING REACTIONS TO THE IMMINENT RESUMPTION OF THE AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 256

171. March 11, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE JARRING MISSION AND THE PERSPECIVES TO SOLVE THE NEAR EAST CRISIS 257

172. March 19, 1968, Bucharest TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON ROMANIA’S ZONAL DIPLOMATIC POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE NEAR EAST PROBLEMS 258

173. March 19, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS, THE JARRING MISSION AND ISRAEL’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROMANIA’S ACTIONS FOR SOLVING THE CRISIS IN THE REGION 260

174. March 23, 1968, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE LATEST EVENTS FROM THE NEAR EAST 262

175. March 26, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISRAELI REACTIONS TO THE DECISION OF THE U.N.’S SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNING THE MILITARY ACTIONS IN JORDAN 263

176. April 29, 1968, Bucharest PROPOSALS NOTE OF THE M.F.A. OF ROMANIA ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT 264

177. May 1, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HEAD OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY ON THE ISSUE OF SOLVING THE NEAR EAST 266

XL

178. June 25, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE VISIT OF THE DELEGATION LEAD BY GEORGE MACOVESCU IN ISRAEL AND ITS IMPACT 267

179. August 4, 1968, Jerusalem MESSAGE OF LEVI ESHKOL, PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, SENT TO ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IN SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS 268

180. August 19, 1968, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING ROMANIA’S INTERVENTION IN THE RELEASE OF THE CREW OF THE PLANE DETAINED BY THE ALGERIAN AUTHORITIES 271

181. August 19, 1968, Tel Aviv, THE TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING ISRAELI COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND ROMANIA’S POSITION 272

182. August 23, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING ISRAELI REACTIONS TO THE ARMED INTERVENTION OF THE WARSAW PACT IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA 273

183. October 30, 1968, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH YIGAL ALLON, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, ON BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION IN THE REGION 275

184. November 15, 1968, Bucharest MESSAGE OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF S.R. OF ROMANIA, SENT TO LEVY ESHKOL, PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT TO THE PROBLEMS FROM THE NEAR EAST AND PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 277

185. [January 1969] Tel Aviv, GENERAL REPORT DRAFTED BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI BILATERAL RELATIONS IN 1968 280

186. February 14, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST 287

XLI

187. February [22], 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MANESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE NEAR EAST SITUATION AND THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 290

188. March 4, 1969, Bucharest TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 293

189. March 5, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 294

190. March 11, 1969, Bucharest TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 296

191. March 13, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE DATE OF INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 297

192. March 18, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO COUNTRIES CONCERNING THE DATE FOR INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASSY 298

193. April 10, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA 300

194. April 12, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA 304

195. April 28, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 305

XLII

196. July 2, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MENACHEM KARMI, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MUTUAL DECISION FOR RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 306

197. August 11, 1969, Bucharest TELEGRAM OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV REGARDING THE DATE FOR RAISING THE LEVEL OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 307

198. August 11, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MENACHEM KARMI, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ACTION OF MUTUAL INCREASSING OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASSY 309

199. August 18, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS MEETING WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL 310

200. August 19, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON CONDUCTING THE OFFICIAL CEREMONY FOR PRESENTING THE LETTERS OF CREDENCE 310

201. August 20, 1969, New York TELEGRAM OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF ROMANIA TO THE U.N. TO MIRCEA MALIȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS TO RAISING DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE LEVEL OF EMBASSY WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL 312

202. August 25, 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH RAFAEL BENSHALOM, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE CEREMONY FOR PRESENTING THE LETTERS OF CREDENCE 313

203. August 27, 1969, Sofia TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE BLEJAN, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN SOFIA, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN COMMENTS TO THE ACTION OF RAISING THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 315

204. September 13, 1969 CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MANESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH RAFAEL BENSHALOM, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 317

D O C U M E N T S

2

3

1

TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER 1), MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT 2), MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF

THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, IN WHICH THE LATTER IS OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED BY

THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT

June [11], 1948, Bucharest

J’ai l’honneur d’accuser la réception du télégramme du 9 juin [1948] [Annexe 1] par laquelle vous notifiez la proclamation de l’État d’Israël et sollicitiez la reconnaissance de l’État d’Israël et de son gouvernement provisoire par la République Populaire Roumaine.

Prenant acte de votre notification, le gouvernement de la République Populaire Roumaine a décidé de reconnaître officiellement l’État d’Israël et son gouvernement provisoire.

Saluant la proclamation du nouvel Etat, le gouvernement roumain exprime ses meilleurs souhaits pour son développement démocratique et indépendant et espère que les relations amicales se développeront entre la République Populaire Roumaine et l’État d’Israël. Au nom du gouvernement de la République Populaire Roumaine.

Annexe 1

On June 9 1948, the Romania government received from Tel Aviv the following telegram:

“Au nom de l’État israélien et de son gouvernement provisoire, j’ai l’honneur de solliciter le gouvernement roumain de reconnaître officiellement l’État israélien et son gouvernement. Stop. J’ose espérer que le gouvernement roumain et son peuple ne resteront pas indifférents événement historique que représente l’établissement de notre Etat et en tirerons les conséquences internationales de la proclamation [de l’] État Israël par [le] Conseil National Juif. Stop. Vous prie bien vouloir prendre note et communiquer à votre gouvernement la déclaration suivante:

“Conseil National Juif, composé [par] membres organes représentatifs élus en Palestine, s’est réuni le 14 mai, jour expiration mandat britannique, et se basant sur le droit national [du] peuple juif à l’indépendance et souveraineté dans son pays ancestral et sur [la] Résolution Assemblée Générale de l’ONU du 19 novembre 1947, a proclamé établissement de l’État juif souverain, appelé État israélien. Stop. Conseil a décidé que jusqu’à formation d’organes d’Etat dument élus conformément à la Constitution qui sera élaborée par Assemblée Constituante au plus tard premier octobre 1948, il agira autant que Conseil

1 Ana Pauker (1893-1960), Romanian politician. Member of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of R.C.P. (1944-1952), Minister of Foreign Affairs (Nov. 7, 1947- May 26, 1952). 2 Moshe (Shertok) Sharett (1894-1965), Israeli politician. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1948-1956). Prime Minister of Israel (Jan. 26, 1954-Aug. 15, 1955).

4

d’’État provisoire, son organe exécutif constituant [le] gouvernement provisoire de l’État israélien. Stop. Conseil a déclaré que État israélien sera ouvert [à l’] immigration tous les juifs, se consacrera [au] développement du pays au profit de tous ses habitants, sera basé sur les principes [de] liberté, justice et paix, maintiendra égalité sociale et politique, tous citoyens sans distinction de race, religion ou sexe, garantira entière liberté conscience, éducation, langue, sauvegardera sainteté et inviolabilité sanctuaires et lieux saints toutes religions, se dévouera [aux] principes Charte Nations Unies. Stop. Conseil également déclare que État israélien est prêt coopérer avec organes et représentants [des] Nations Unies et quant à exécution Résolution Assemblée du 29 novembre 1947 et fera nécessaire pour rendre efficace union économique Palestine. Stop. Conseil a lancé appel à tous habitants arabes [de l’] État israélien à fin que reprennent vie de paix et que participent ainsi [au] développement État, tenir tête sur tous fronts contre l’agresseur. Gouvernement provisoire a réussi mettre sur pied son appareil administratif, organiser ses services essentiels et maintenir la paix intérieure sur totalité étendue de son territoire. Stop. Sommes confiants que votre reconnaissance [de l’] État israélien, ne faisant que renforcer liens amicaux existant entre nos deux pays, se fera prochainement. Stop. Conseil a assure habitants arabes de cet État jouissance droit citoyenneté égal et intégral et représentation démocratique dans ses organes gouvernementaux, aussi bien provisoires que permanents. Stop. Tous États voisins et leurs peuples [sont] invités à collaborer avec [l’] État israélien pour bien commun, depuis tout en fournissant effort nécessaire et contribuera à l’accueil d’Israël dans [la] famille des nations.

Au nom du gouvernement provisoire israélien.

(Ss) Moshe Shertok, ministre des Affaires étrangères” . AMFA founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1948, f. 241-242. See Ibidem, founds Israel. Problem 220, vol. 2 (Recognition of the State of Israel by the P.R.R.), unpaged.

2

TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFA IRS OF

THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOTH DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTA TIONS

No. 35 711 July 3, 1948, Bucharest

Confirmons télégramme numéro 32 du 21 juin. Gouvernement roumain est d’accord

pour l’établissement de la Légation de l’État d’Israël à Bucarest, comprenant ministre et consul général, de même que Légation roumaine à Tel Aviv. Stop. Prions envoyer Curriculum Vitae de la personne indiquée au poste de ministre pour confirmer agrément. Stop. Accorde visa monsieur Mordechai Namir1)” transmis Ambassade roumaine Prague, idem Alexandrowicz.

AMFA founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1948, f. 242.

1) Mordechai Namir (1897-1975), Israeli politician. Secretary of the Ahdut Haavoda Party (1926-1929), head of the “research” department from Histadrut (1929-1935), elected member of the World Zionist Council (1937), member of Haganah (1930-1938); counsellor of legation (1948) and afterwards ambassador in Moscow (1949-1950). Secretary General of Histadrut (1951-1956), Minister of Labour (1956-1959). Mayor of Tel Aviv (1959-1969).

5

3

TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFA IRS OF

THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF ISRAEL, ON GRANTING ACCREDITATION TO ITS FIRST REPRESENTATIVE IN BUCHAR EST

No. 62 051 November 13, 1948, Bucharest

J’ai l’honneur de porter a votre connaissance que le Président du Présidium de la Grande Assemblée Nationale de la République Populaire Roumaine [Acad. Constantin I. Parhon1) – our ref.] a accordé agrément pour Monsieur Reuven Rubin2), désigné par le Gouvernement Israël en qualité d’envoyé extraordinaire et ministre plénipotentiaire. AMFA founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1948, f. 247.

4

LETTER OF MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIR S OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION

No. 4155 -A March 11, 1949, Hakirya

Excellence, J’ai l’honneur de Vous adresser la communication suivante au sujet des relations entre

Israël et la République Populaire de Roumanie, en exprimant l’espoir que les différentes considérations exposées ci-après recevront toute votre bienveillante attention.

Notre peuple a été très heureux d’apprendre en date du 11 Juin 19481 que la R.P.R. avait reconnu l’État d’Israël et qu’elle était disposée à entretenir des relations diplomatiques avec lui. C’est avec une très grande satisfaction que la population de ce pays a pris connaissance de l’établissement d’une Légation israélienne à Bucarest en décembre dernier. Le fait que le Gouvernement roumain n’ait pas encore pris de mesure analogue en envoyant un ministre à Hakirya, quoique vivement regretté par mon Gouvernement, ne doit en rien affecter l’amitié

1) Constantin I. Parhon (1874-1969), Romanian scientist, renowned endocrinologist. Chairman of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly (Dec. 30, 1947-Jun. 2, 1952). 2) Reuven Rubin (Nov. 13, 1893, Galati-Oct. 13, 1974), Israeli diplomat, extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister of Israel in Bucharest within Nov. 30, 1948-Dec. 10, 1949. Presented his letters of credence on Jan. 12, 1949, when he expressed the “great honour” of being designated as the first diplomatic representative of the Israeli government in Romania. “I am extremely happy when I come to this country, where I first saw the light of day and where I learned to love the Romanian people, language and culture” – he mentioned, also saying that shall use all reasonable endeavours to “build strong ties of friendship” between the two states and peoples. “I believe that the development of such relations between the free Roman people and the people of Israel, which after two thousand years of exile and scattering managed to set out an independent life in its own country […] will bring a blessing to both our peoples”. Cf. AMFA, founds 10/Foreign representatives. Israel, dossier R-22, unpaged). 1 See doc. no. 1.

6

de nos relations réciproques, d’autant plus que ce retard peut être imputé à des difficultés provisoires, qui, nous l’espérons, pourront bientôt être surmontées.

Mais un problème qui cause une inquiétude bien plus grave à mon Gouvernement, c’est celui de l’évolution du problème de l’émigration des Juifs roumains en Israël. Votre Excellence n’est certes pas sans connaître l’importance que le Gouvernement et le peuple d’Israël attachent à l’immigration en général et à celle provenant des pays de l’Europe Orientale en particulier. C’est pourquoi nous étions profondément reconnaissants à Votre Gouvernement d’avoir autorisé le départ vers Israël de plusieurs milliers de Juifs, qui sont venus s’établir dans ce pays et participer à sa défense et à son développement. Néanmoins, dernièrement, cette émigration à été entravée, et une incertitude semble régner si, quand, et dans quelle mesure elle pourra être reprise.

II se pourrait qu’il existe un certain malentendu quant à la valeur réelle de l’immigration pour Israël; si c’était le cas, il serait important d’éclaircir ce point. En effet, l’impression pourrait prévaloir que nous nous trouvions avoir un besoin urgent d’immigrants d’un certain âge en vue de renforcer notre armée, et uniquement pour la période où nous étions engagés dans la lutte contre les agresseurs2; et qu’en conséquence, dès que les combats eurent pris fin, le besoin de ces immigrants – et de l’immigration en général – ait disparu. Si une impression pareille subsistait, elle serait basée sur une méconnaissance totale de notre situation réelle et nos besoins les plus essentiels.

Israël est aujourd’hui une petite nation ayant à faire face à des pays voisins dominés pour l’instant par des forces et des intérêts hostiles à son existence et à son développement. Même si nous avons réussi jusqu’à présent à repousser l’invasion, nous ne saurions considérer notre situation comme militairement assurée tant que notre potentiel de guerre ne sera pas considérablement accru, et en tout premier lieu en effectifs.

La situation militaire, aussi importante qu’elle soit, ne présente que l’un des aspects du problème de notre avenir. Un autre facteur, dont l’importance est prépondérante, en est le développement économique. Israël ne saurait croître en force et prospérer, il ne saurait être fidèle à sa destinée ni remplir sa mission dans cette partie du monde, sans exploiter jusqu’à l’extrême limite les possibilités de sa croissance et de son progrès économique. Ses régions désertiques et peu développées doivent être soumises à une culture intensive et peuplées d’une manière productive; ses possibilités industrielles doivent être pleinement réalisées. Ce n’est qu’ainsi qu’il pourra faire surgir un système social et économique vigoureux et indépendant, capable de tenir tête à ses voisins, si ceux-ci préfèrent lui rester hostiles, et de former un vrai bastion de démocratie et d’indépendance parmi un monde encore plongé dans la féodalité et pourri par des intrigues impérialistes.

L’accomplissement de cette tâche immense exige non seulement une augmentation considérable de la population, mais demande aussi un matériel humain d’une certaine qualité. Ce qu’il faut, c’est l’introduction d’un élément de pionniers dont la foi, le courage et l’élan permettraient de surmonter les difficultés qui se présenteront, afin de mener à une réussite le grand effort de développement et de construction nationale. Dans le passé, ce sont surtout des éléments pareils qui formèrent la base de la classe ouvrière juive en Israël, et c’est en grande

2 This is the first Arab-Israeli war started on May 15, 1949 (the “march” of the Arab League armies – Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq – infiltrated on the Israeli territory) under the pretext that the events in Palestine (proclamation of independence of Israel) threatened the security of the neighboring Arab countries. U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution calling for a ceasefire, Count Bernadotte was appointed U.N. mediator in Palestine. On Nov. 16, 1948 the same Security Council requested the parties to the conflict to call a truce, which should include: delimitation of a truce line that should not be crossed by the belligerent armed forces; the withdrawal and reduction of the armed forces and ceasing hostilities during the period of transition to permanent peace in Palestine. On Feb. 24, 1949 was signed in Rhodes, the armistice agreement between Israel and Egypt, and then one by one Lebanon (Mar. 23), Jordan (April 3) and Syria (Jul 20) concluded similar documents.

7

partie grâce à leur zèle et à leur endurance que l’effort de reconstruction juif s’est développé en la structure d’un État indépendant capable de triompher de destins contraires.

Le réservoir principal de ces éléments pionniers à toujours été constitué – et l’est encore aujourd’hui – par les pays de l’Europe Orientale.

Du point de vue historique, le mouvement qui a abouti à la création de la Palestine juive moderne fut le retour des Juifs de tous les pays du monde vers le pays qui fut le berceau de leur peuple. Ce rassemblement des exilés n’a nullement pris fin avec la réalisation de l’indépendance. Au contraire, pour le peuple juif, le but principal de l’établissement de son État en Palestine fut d’accélérer le rythme et d’étendre la portée du Retour. Deux conditions essentielles s’imposent pour atteindre ce but: d’abord, le libre exercice par Israël de son droit souverain d’admettre dans son territoire tous les Juifs désirant y retourner et ensuite l’accord des gouvernements intéressés pour que les Juifs voulant s’établir dans leur patrie historique puissent quitter leur pays de résidence. La première de ces conditions a été réalisée et sera fermement maintenue par le Gouvernement d’Israël. La seconde dépend des autres gouvernements.

Le Gouvernement et le peuple d’Israël étaient persuadés que les Puissances qui ont contribué à la création de l’État Juif, qui ont été parmi les premières à le reconnaître des son établissement et qui n’ont cessé de faire preuve d’une attitude amicale à son égard, ont suivi cette ligne de conduite en pleine conscience de la justice et de la nécessité historique inhérentes au développement ayant donné naissance à Israël. Ils espéraient également que l’aide efficace de ces Puissances leur serait acquise à l’avenir afin d’assurer la continuité de ce mouvement, qui seule peut sauvegarder l’indépendance d’Israël, réalisée au prix de si lourds sacrifices et apportant une contribution aussi importante à l’indépendance ultime du Moyen Orient. Ils seraient amèrement désappointés si cette attente, qui leur semble si légitime, devait être déçue.

Les sentiments d’inquiétude régnant en Israël à l’égard du sort de l’émigration des Juifs de Votre pays sont considérablement aggravés par les nouvelles de la liquidation administrative du mouvement sioniste dans la R.P.R., accompagnée d’une campagne violemment hostile au sionisme dans la presse roumaine. Il pourrait s’agir là d’un problème intérieur de la vie politique de Votre pays, où un Gouvernement étranger n’aurait aucunement à intervenir. Néanmoins, il a des effets directs sur l’opinion publique en Israël, et sa portée sur l’attitude du Gouvernement d’Israël ne saurait être évitée. Une partie considérable de ce qui a été réalisé par les Juifs en Palestine, de ce qui a abouti à la création de l’État d’Israël, et en conséquence de ce qui a été pleinement reconnu comme présentant une valeur positive incontestable par un grand nombre de gouvernements amis, dont le Votre, a été dû au soutien actif et à la participation directe des Sionistes roumains. L’État d’Israël dans son ensemble n’est rien d’autre que le résultat de la volonté nationale du peuple juif dans le monde entier, exprimé et traduit en action par l’organisation sioniste. Pour le peuple juif, le mouvement sioniste est l’expression la plus libre et la plus pure de l’indépendance de sa pensée et de son action politique. Les Sionistes sont fiers, à juste titre, de ce que dès ses débuts leur mouvement fut réellement démocratique dans son organisation et dans son esprit, et qu’il a réussi à créer en Palestine une société avancée, créatrice et dynamique, qui a su élever la classe ouvrière à un niveau de prédominance politique et de dignité sociale sans précédent dans la vie du peuple juif et sans exemple dans tout l’Orient. C’est pourquoi le peuple d’Israël en général, et sa classe ouvrière en particulier, ne peuvent rester indifférents quand le sionisme est stigmatisé comme “l’arme empoisonnée de l’impérialisme” et comme une force réactionnaire et fasciste. Le ressentiment qu’une campagne pareille soulève dans les cœurs des vastes multitudes en Israël et parmi le peuple juif dans le monde entier ne peut que causer les plus graves soucis à ceux qui sont vivement intéressés à préserver et à développer l’amitié entre Israël et la R.P.R., tout comme entre Israël et les autres pays de l’Europe Orientale.

8

Ce problème est aggravé encore du fait de l’anxiété éprouvée pour les milliers de jeunes hommes et femmes organisés au sein du mouvement Halutz (Pionniers). Ils ont consacré en effet des années de leur vie à l’entraînement et à la préparation, en vue de s’établir en Palestine, imbus du désir ardent de rejoindre les bâtisseurs du nouvel Israël et de trouver l’occasion de traduire leur idéalisme socialiste en action constructive sur le sol de leurs ancêtres. Pour ceux-là, ne pas immigrer en Israël équivaudrait à la ruine de leur jeune existence. La valeur d’une jeune main d’œuvre pour la tâche de reconstruction économique en R.P.R. elle-même est incontestable. Mais qu’il nous soit permis, de notre cotée, de souligner l’énorme disproportion existant entre la perte subie par Votre pays – proportionnellement à sa population – du fait de l’émigration de chaque Juif vers Israël, et le gain dont en bénéficierait ce pays. De plus, il est infiniment plus facile de rendre les masses juives productives en Palestine, où elles sont portées par une vague d’enthousiasme national, que dans aucun autre pays du monde. Il serait indiqué – dans la mesure où l’on accepte le principe des intérêts progressifs de l’humanité – d’insister sur la leçon de l’expérience, en ce sens que la capacité créatrice de chaque groupe de Juifs se trouve décuplée et centuplée leur transfert en Palestine, car c’est la seulement que leurs énergies latentes répondent à l’appel de la responsabilité, tant nationale que sociale.

Un autre problème que je me vois obligé de soulever dans cette lettre, c’est celui des sept émissaires de Palestine, tous citoyens d’Israël, qui, selon la pratique établie depuis plusieurs années, ont exercé leur activité au sein des mouvements de jeunesse juive en qualité d’instructeurs. J’ai appris qu’ils ont été arrêtés sous prétexte d’avoir organisé des manifestations publiques et d’être intervenus de quelque autre manière dans la vie politique intérieure du pays3. Autant que je le sache, ces accusations ne sont pas fondées. En effet, parmi ces sept jeunes gens, il en est quelques uns qui étaient arrêtés plusieurs semaines avant que ces manifestations aient eu lieu. Mon Gouvernement regrette tout particulièrement que la requête de notre Ministre, visant à la libération de ces citoyens israéliens afin qu’ils puissent rentrer chez eux, n’ait pas encore été exaucée.

Mon Gouvernement espère sincèrement que le présent exposé bénéficiera de Votre attention sympathique et amicale. Il en appelle à Votre Excellence – et par Son entremise à Votre Gouvernement – afin de réexaminer tout le problème de l’émigration juive vers Israël. Il serait particulièrement heureux que les quelque cinq mille membres du mouvement Halutz soient autorisés à se rendre en Israël aussi rapidement que possible. Il insiste sur la libération immédiate des sept citoyens israéliens en vue de leur rapatriement. Il exprime le souhait que l’attitude de l’administration et de la presse à l’égard du mouvement sioniste soit passée en revue. Il espère qu’en conséquence, une politique sera adoptée qui soit en accord et non pas en contradiction avec l’amitié de la République Populaire de Roumanie envers Israël.

Au nom de mon Gouvernement, je tiens à vous assurer de notre sincère désir de conserver les relations les plus amicales avec le Gouvernement de la R.P.R. et de nos vœux les plus chaleureux pour une nouvelle Roumaine croissante en puissance et en prospérité. Nous demeurons fermement convaincus qu’une attitude semblable de la part du Gouvernement roumain à l’égard d’Israël – attitude basée sur un examen compréhensif des problèmes d’Israël – ouvrirait la voie à un mode d’action, qui, sans aucunement gêner la structure politique actuelle de Votre pays, permettrait de donner satisfaction aux intérêts légitimes du peuple juif et aux besoins vitaux de l’État d’Israël.

Je Vous serais reconnaissant de vouloir bien remettre une réponse à cette lettre par l’entremise de notre Ministre à Bucarest.

Veuillez croire, Excellence, à l’assurance de ma très haute considération.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged. 3 See AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 210/1949, unpaged.

9

5

REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,

REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROMANIAN MISSION AND ITS FIRST CONTACTS WITH

THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES

No 94 August 28, 1949, Tel Aviv Madam Minister, In the name of the P.R.R. Legation from Tel Aviv I am presenting you the first activity

report since June 23, the day of our arrival until July 31, 1949. 1) The journey on “Transilvania” ship went well. We arrived in Haifa Wednesday June 22, current year, at 1 o’clock in the afternoon.

Thanks to the presence on the ship of some Soviet diplomats who were returning from vacation and to the presence of the diplomats from the P.R.R. the ship, which was usually kept at sea for 12 to 30 hours, was brought to the pier immediately and we got off at 3 p.m. I was greeted by an employee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She gave us the Minister’s telephone number and the address of “Yarden” hotel, where rooms had been booked for us. She also made available to us a car to take us to Tel Aviv. We transported our luggage with a truck on our own. A harbour police inspector took us to the exit of the harbour.

We arrived in Tel Aviv the following day. 2) On June 23 we phoned the protocol service and at 11 o’clock we visited

Dr. Simon, the head of Protocol. He received me friendly. He also called his deputy, Gideon and we talked together. I

told him I had a letter from our Minister to Minister Sharett and since he didn’t know beforehand, he said: “Mr. Sharett is very busy right now, I will let him know and I will phone you to tell you when he can see you”.

I told them that the hotel and the rooms do not correspond to the situation and our needs. Dr. Simon replied that the hotel was one of the best in town, that he didn’t find free rooms at another hotel and that he will however continue to search other hotels and will help us change accommodation.

As soon as I showed him the letter for cashing the amount of 1010 Israeli pounds he immediately arranged for me to receive the money. I had to ask for the money during our first meeting because I had no money, and the Anglo-Palestine Bank told me they hadn’t received any payment order.

Then the conversation evolved around the trip, the climate. They know very little about our country and they were surprised by everything I told them: the increase of life standard for those who work the solutions to the national problem, how the state plan is implemented, and the socialist competitions. Our country is a new country, said Simon talking about Israel, we just ended a war and we’re experiencing difficulties. Their surprise about what is happening in our country I’ve seen it in others, almost all of them: they know us from the Zionist and American literature.

During our conversation Dr. Eliasiv, the director of the East European Department of the Ministry, phoned and we set an appointment with him for Monday, June the 27th, since they don’t work on Friday afternoon and Saturday and Sunday is our day.

10

They issued the diplomat booklets easily, but they didn’t give us the cards, although we always asked for them, related to the house search they sent us to specialists in the field who took us to see houses and places that we will mention below.

3) I went to Friedman on June 27. We discussed the same issues. Dr. Elias was in the country for a C.G.M. Congress, and he visited the “23 August” factory, “we don’t have factories like that here”. He also visited Iaşi and Suceava. I met Walter here, born in Cluj, the clerk for the Romania and Hungary section for Elias’ department. We also talked about dwellings and he told me that due to the crisis not even have a home and he lives in Bejarano’s house, the economic counsellor to Moscow, and if the latter returns, he won’t have a place to live.

4) Sharett received me in room 30, his office [in] Kirjah (the government headquarters), where I was taken by Dr. Simon and Elias joined us. Sharett came to the door to receive me. Dr. Simon introduced us. We sat around Sharett’s office desk and I gave him the letter. He read it. He said “welcome”, and he put the letter in the drawer. He started a very varied and lively conversation. The Minister is talkative. He asked about my health, about how I like the climate. Then he asked about our country, the comrade Ana. I told him how we work, how we build socialism with the help of U.S.S.R. and I presented Ana’s fighter and leader skills. “Does Mrs. Pauker speak Russian?” Simon asked. “She does”. I told them how comrade Ana fought and how much she suffered during the leadership of Maniu and Brătianu how she was saved by the U.S.S.R. in 1940. He talked to me about Ben Gurion like this: a man rose from the bottom, he was a pioneer, then printing worker, policeman in Palestine and is now he is a Prime Minister. We talked about the cohabitant nationalities. He said that in Israel, the Arabs left because they were deceived, they were told that in ten days the Jews will be destroyed and they will have a country and own everything that was here, and [then] he began a historical explanation about the Druids living in the North, fighters with secret religion. I told them how things are back home, how nationalities fit with our plan for building the socialism, about schools, theatres, about the Hungarians, about the Jews. He kept using the term minorities. I told him that back home they are not minorities, they are cohabitant nationalities. He stopped insisting.

They served tea. While having tea Sharett asked me if I knew when the Minister would come. I told him that it is to be decided by the government, I know nothing anything about it at the moment.

Rubin, our Minister from Bucharest, left today for his post, among other things he also carries the agreement for the Minister, said Sharett to me.

Then we talked about Turks. Sharett was born in Turkey and he served in the Turkish army during the World War. “We were organizing shows and raising money for the Turks’ war,” remembers Sharett.

During the conversation the two directors who were present spoke rarely, agreeing of course with Sharett. They participated to the conversation in relation to the relations of the Romanian Principalities with the Turks, when Sharett found himself not knowing too much of the matter.

The visit lasted for 35 minutes. When I left Sharett led me out to the office door and Dr. Elias to the gate to the street.

5) The Government’s Residence is in a former German colony, in a small town of kulak villas, on the outskirts of Tel Aviv. The Germans who lived here, very rich, part of them fled during the war, and part of them were killed by the British. They were Christians Germans. The interim government settled in this town. Each ministry occupies several villas. In the past the town was called Sarona. Now, since the government settled here it is called Kiryat (small town). I’m going to Kirjah (Kiryat) means that someone goes to the government.

11

6) As soon as I returned from the meeting with Sharett (this is how his name is spelled), I prepared the form letter for the diplomatic body.

When we arrived in Tel Aviv there were only four legations: the Soviet, the American Embassy, the English and the French (Minister [Félix] Guyon arrived with his family on July 3rd), led by a chargé d’affaires. There are many consulates here, General Consulates in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, consuls in Haifa. (I’ll attach a list of the diplomatic body present here as it was in July 1949, as well as a list of Israel’s diplomatic representatives in the other countries*. Some General Consuls represent their country temporarily with the Government of Israel (Polish, Italian, etc.). The Yugoslav minister came and opened his legation at the beginning of the month. Other countries: Switzerland, Argentina have a person in charge of the location, Argentina’ Legation will settle here in September.

I set the first letter to the comrades from the Soviet legation on July 4th. They received me on July 5th.

The Soviet Legation is located at 46 Rothschild Bd., in a proper house with a large garden. The house was the headquarters of a section of the Intelligence Service. Since the Soviets were here when the British were retreating they found this house and could take it. Most of the people in Protocol say: “The Russians were the first and they were lucky”. They spent two months at the hotel. The legation is run by counsellor Mikhail Lukitch Mukhin, in the absence of Minister Yershov1, Muchin is a career diplomat. Siberian at his origin, he speaks both English and Spanish. Our interpreter is Nikolai Petrovich Sergeev, the second secretary and head of the consular section. He speaks French. He is from the Soviet Moldavia and knows a few Moldovan [Romanian] phrases. Our friends received me with a warm welcomed.

So far you are the only friend legation here, Mukhin told me, our experience is at your disposal. You Consul will meet with ours for practical problems. (They met just a few days later). They were glad to hear we visited them first, but if the “dean” [of the Diplomatic body – our ref.] McDonald would ask me (he might know) I should say that I visited in particular families who travelled with us on the “Transylvania”. “Whenever you want to talk, give me a call and we’ll set a time.” I didn’t abuse this generosity, but I made use of it in two or three situations: invitations etc. I talked with the Comrade about the Zionist problem. Our points of view were the same both regarding our position to Zionism, and to immigration: the bourgeois nationalists, whatever the Zionists are called.

In regard to the pursuit by the police and spies, they told me the following: Israeli police deals mostly with internal problems; they’re not pursuing us at the moment. The risk comes from and attention must be paid to the Americans and British.

The comrades returned the visit. Mukhin and Sergeev came to see us. They stayed over an hour. We discussed various issues. I served them wine from back home, the one I received and they liked it.

8) I went to [James G.] McDonald [1886-1964] [the U.S. Ambassador, 1949-1950]. He received me at his residence from Ramat Gan (a small town 6 km North of Tel Aviv), about which one of the clerks from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told me “It’s our Sinaia.” There is a trend here for the ministers, the legation councillors to have a place in Ramat Gan.

McDonald welcomed me with a very warm “Shalom”. I waited a bit in his parlour then he took me through the house and showed me the paintings. “All these paintings are by Jew painters from Israel”. Then we went on the terrace above the house, where there is a broad view on Tel Aviv up to the sea, and we talked.

* Shall not be published – our ref. 1 Pavel Iv. Yershov (1914-1981), Soviet diplomat. Consul in Turkey (1944-1948), ambassador in Tel Aviv (1948-1953), head of Europe Section of M.F.A. (1953-1955), ambassador in Bern (1955-1957), Deputy Director General of UNESCO (1961-1964).

12

After the initial common questions he asked me about Comrade Ana. “She’s so full of energy, she has children”. He was very surprised by everything I told him. Like in Sharett’s case I didn’t exaggerate, I just told him how she is, how she works and I gave some details of com[rade] Ana’s fight in the past. The old man was shaking his head: “vraiment, vraiment...”

About Israel said showing me the garden “I have to bring food from home. This is the most expensive country in the world”.

Golda Mayersohn2) was in America then: “She went to raise dollars”. (I don’t know if Golda Meir brought dollars, but she came back accompanied by “American technicians specialized in oil”, as shown below). McDonald said this with a smile.

It was the mourning days following the death of [Georgi] Dimitrov3). I asked the Dean if he took any action for presenting condolences. It was like he was hit by lightning. He called the secretary and she wrote something in her notebook. But nothing was done. When I saw Mukhin a few days later at a reception, I told him about it. Mukhin said I did very well.

When I left the old man showed me out to the street gate. He wanted to offer me the car, but I had made sure to have the taxi that had brought me wait for me.

When he told me about the food situation here, I mentioned the wealth of our Republic. McDonald said: “I know” and he also spoke about his country, where the food is not like here in Israel”.

9) I paid a visit to the English. Helm, the Minister, received me at the legation’s head office very kindly. They say he is not the typical Englishman. He is active, he walks, he talks, he laughs. He was in our country once for two days, visiting Minister Holm (Helm was then in Budapest).

He received me at the legation’s headquarters settled on the fifth floor of a building with many neighbours. The consular offices are located in the same building, in the basement. He and I talked about things in general.

He was to visit us back. Two or three days after my visit I received a letter announcing he was called to London for an urgent matter. He will visit us after he returns.

10) I sent, following the advice of the com[rades] from the Soviet legation, a form letter to all the consulates. I didn’t send it to the Greeks and Spanish. Most of them responded. The Polish consul general in Tel Aviv, Loç, paid us a visit. He’s been here for three years and he believes that a legation will be organized soon. I print a newsletter in Hebrew three times a week.

11) The Yugoslav Minister, came after us, he didn’t communicate us his arrival. We have no contact with the Yugoslav Legation.

12) Immediately after our arrival we decided: a) to establish relations with the officials and the diplomatic body; b) to find an establishment for the headquarters and dwellings and to organize our

work; c) to make contact with people arrived from the country; d) to seek ways to inform ourselves in order to know the country, the people.

2) Golda Meir (Meyersohn, Mabovitch) (1898-1978), Israeli politician. Born in Kiev, she emigrated to Palestine in 1921, participating at the organization of the first kibbutzim, which she represented in Histadrut; secretary (1928-1932) and member of the Council for Working Women (1934-1939); in 1946 she took over the Political Department of Sohnut. Ambassador in Moscow (1948-1949), member of the Knesset (1949-1974). Minister of Labour (1949-1956) and of Foreign Affairs (1956-1966). Secretary General of MAPAI (Jan. 1966) Prime Minister (Mar. 17, 1969-Apr. 11, 1974). 3) Reference to the death, on Jul. 2, 1949 of Georgi Mihailovitch Dimitrov (b. 1882), founder (1919) and political leader of Bulgarian Communist Party, former Secretary General of Komintem (1935-1943), Prime Minister (1945-1949).

13

Headquarters and housing The government found a place for us to live at hotel “Yarden”. For the Yugoslavs they

booked rooms at hotel “Yarkon” for the French at “Kaete Dan’s”, more elegant hotels, but from a category slightly different from ours. We asked to be given rooms at the same hotels. We searched for ourselves, but we couldn’t find any. Protocol claims that they booked rooms for the Yugoslavs 30 days before the arrival of the legation and for housing. Here the government told us that they cannot commandeer, and they cannot follow here the example of our government with the support of their legation in Bucharest. Around the same time the British bought a house which they are renovating for the legation, the French leased a house in Jaffa; the others are still staying at the hotel and keep on looking. Some buy, other build. The government put us in touch with the semi-state company Rasco, and we began looking for a house or a place. We visited many houses and many places. Some houses were already built; others were under construction, which can be arranged according to our needs. On July 13, I wrote a letter to comrade director Lustig, sending some offers, including the prices, the surface, conditions and building. We now have a dozen other proposals. In our letter from July 13, I proposed to be sent an architect to see the locations, to draft the plans or to see any house to be bought. Also, the power of attorney to sign contracts. So far I haven’t yet received an answer. In case we decide to build we can bring all the material from the country, in a quantity large enough to cover both the building and manpower needs. We received a proposal from a contractor we can provide housing and office space until the building is finished, which should last about six months. In order for us to move forward this matter depends only on the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our headquarters, as it is now, does not meet the work conditions. We don’t have a room for receiving guests. We cannot form relations. Now, during registration, 30-35 people come daily at the legation, the situation is very difficult. People are crowding the halls, they block the travellers. It worked for the first month, but in the future the activity will be obstructed even more.

Prices are lower now. The government promised to lower the prices for labour and materials. The contractors don’t undertake construction work and the prospective buyers are also waiting. From this point of view it is a good time.

Moving the capital to Jerusalem4) is a matter still far from the solution. In the past few days we were suggested to rent a floor that is now in construction in a three-storey building, with 6 rooms where we could set the legation’s premises until the problem is solved. They are asking for 15,000 [Israeli] pounds key money for a three-year contract. We might be able to reduce it. But key money doesn’t get lower. Please communicate to us the decisions made regarding the headquarters so that we can find a solution.

So far we have set our offices and home at a hotel. We have four rooms on the same floor, but not connected. One of them, the largest, is used as office for the consulate. In this room we also have lockers with materials and books.

In another room is the office where I work. We live in the other rooms. We rented the office furniture, the hotel didn’t have any. The safe where we keep the valuables is in the room where I sleep. The hotel doesn’t have enough security.

13) Our work here is a group work. We consult in all matters. We discuss either in the room where we have a radio, or on the street. I am responsible for matters related to representation, connections, press. Comrade Consul [Barbu Dianu], who visited the Director of the Consular Department, within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is in charge of consular work.

4) Israel transferred gradually most of its central institutions in the Israeli area of Jerusalem, which – since January 20, 1950 – was considered the capital of the country, without this measure being recognized internationally. The Romanians maintained the diplomatic mission in Tel Aviv.

14

We divided the interior work so that we can do our job better. We help each other whenever we need to. I keep the Legation’s records. Every night I listen to the radio and then I communicate the news to the com[rades].

For translation we hired a young man who was recommended to us. He comes here every day and does translations of Hebrew newspapers. I hereby attach his autobiography (not published). He could also write for “Unirea” newspaper. His work must be paid with 55 (fifty five) Israeli pounds per month.

14) During the month of July I attended several receptions: • On July 10, at President Weizmann’s5), at his residence in Rechovot, on the eve of his

departure abroad. This is when I met several officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Radai, the Secretary General, [Yehezkel] Sahar, the General Inspector of Police [1948-1958]. I spoke with Zerubabel, one of the MAPAM leaders. I met Jacob [Yaakov] Dori [1899-1973], the army commander [1948-1949]. Ben Gurion6) was absent, but his wife attended. There were Ministers and representatives of all religions: Christians, Arabs, Jews.

• On July 12, at a reception held by Eliasiv in the honour of the Soviet Legation. The reception was on the terrace of “Kaetew Dan’s” hotel, where we would hold the reception for August 23.

• On July 17, the Army Day. At [time] 4 o’clock, parade. At 9, the reception held by the General Staff in the Kiria garden. This day had a great impact here; it was discussed at large in the press. The parade was an opportunity for Israel to show its current military force, on the eve of the resumption of talks with Syria for ceasefire and the talks from Lausanne. Approximately 2000 soldiers from all the branches marched: tanks, motorized, navy, cavalry, sanitation, 3 bombers and 6 fighters. Approximately 4000 people attended the parade. There were many people on streets where the army marched, low enthusiasm. I was told that 90% of the army is made of new immigrants.

• On July 22, the reception held by the Polish consul general Loç, celebrating five years since liberation. On this day I met part of the Polish consulate staff. I talked especially with Markti, the head of the consulate’s Press and Propaganda Department. I also met Mrs. Guyon, the wife of the French minister, several soldiers and diplomats.

• On July 24, at the reception held by the representatives of the state companies from the P.R.R., which was attended by officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, from the Tel Aviv City Hall and several large importers.

• We were also invited to a concert on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of Pushkin’s birth, held by the Philharmonic here. Except for the reception held by the President, we were both invited and we went together to all the others.

15) Regarding the Romanian immigrants, the media and propaganda, foreign relations, the economic life, I’ll give you an overview separately from the material gathered.

16) Difficulties and shortcomings in our work: besides the difficulty shown above regarding the headquarters, we also have other difficulties and shortcomings:

5) Chaim Weizmann (Weismann) (1874-1952), Israeli chemist and politician. Doctor at the University of Freiburg; President of the International Zionist Organization (1920-1931 and 1935-1946), he was the first President of the State of Israel (May 15, 1948-Nov. 9, 1952). 6) Ben Gurion (David Grin) (1886-1973), politician, founder of the State of Israel. Born in Poland, he went to Palestine in 1906, settling in Petach-Tikva, the first Jewish village created in the region. In 1918 he founded the party Ahdut-Haavoda (the Labour Union). One of the organizers of the Labour Party (MAPAI) and of the General Federation of Labour (HISTADRUT), being its Secretary General within 1921-1935. President of the Jewish Agency for Palestine (1935-1948). On May 14, 1948, with the proclamation of independence of the State of Israel, he announced the formation of a provisional government, during which he was president and Minister of Defence. He relinquished the official positions in Nov. 1953, retiring in the Negev desert, in the Sdeh Boker kibbutz. Starting Feb. 1955 he was once again part of the government, as Minister of Defence. Staring Nov. 1955, he replaced Moshe Sharett to lead the government. In Jun. 1963 he withdrew for good from politics.

15

a) We don’t speak English and Hebrew. They speak these two languages here. Only the government officials speak Russian. English is beginning to become the official language of the state. About a month ago I hired an English teacher, recommended by our friends here.

b) The lack of a person to help us with the domestic work. None of us is accustomed to such a work, we do not know how to type, all rides, to the post office, to buy any little thing, one of us must go. This takes a lot of our time. We would need an official who is familiar with the typewriter and a janitor.

c) The fact that we are at the beginning of the diplomatic work. We try to learn something from each case and to use the experience of the old ones.

d) Although we have divided the work and we work collectively, we haven’t divided our time well enough. We don’t have enough time. Based on our experience in the past month we will try to deal with this.

e) We still haven’t got used to the way of life here, to the terrible noise of the city, to the hot and humid climate. The temperature is not higher than Bucharest during July and August, but the lack of rain, the humid air that makes your hands become sticky and rusts needles in the box. It’s just a matter of time before we get used to it. Also, to the food and the restaurant life, the Tzena system. The presence of our families here would make all these difficulties go away.

f) The lack of a car, which is why we haven’t been able so far to visit the most important centres in Israel. This is something that makes it difficult for us to be informed. Information about the kibbutzim or the cooperative villages must be verified in the field. We have freedom of movement, but we haven’t used it enough. The car we would be very helpful. I should mention that we are the only ones who don’t have a car. There is no other legation or consulate that does not have a car. The Americans and the British have literally dozens of cars and they are always on all roads.

g) The lack of a code hampers our ties with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Since there no telephone connections here, the use of the code and the prompt response from Bucharest would help us a lot.

h) The lack of our families and of family life is also difficult on our work here. The wives could help us with the domestic work. We know now the conditions of life here. Even if we would have to stay for a while at the hotel, it would be another room for the children until the minister would arrive with his family. Our lives would improve a lot. We would be freer. We could make connections easier, therefore enlarge the field of information, of activity.

We also like for you to analyze our work so far, to give us all the necessary advice, because as we committed when we left, we want to serve our country and the party as useful as possible, to contribute to the task given to build socialism in our country and to the fight for democracy, for peace.

We would also want you to point out the shortcomings that we haven’t seen, that we haven’t noted and which deduced from the report and our activity. Please tell us we should have done and didn’t do. Your criticism will be very helpful, as well as your guidance and answers to our questions.

(Ss) Paul Davidovici7) Counsellor of the Romanian Legation

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged.

7) Paul Davidovici (Moritz), Romanian diplomat. Born in Iasi on May 21, 1903, employed by the M.F.A. on May 10, 1949, as legation adviser and transferred on 20 Jun. 1949 on the same position to Tel Aviv; director at the M.F.A. Centre from Feb. 1, 1952 until Jun. 1, 1953, afterwards working for CENTROCOOP.

16

6

REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER,

VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE PRESENTATION OF HIS CREDENCIALS

No. 165 A September 26, 1949, Tel Aviv Comrade Minister, I have the honour to report the following: We arrived in the port of Haifa on September 11, in the afternoon, being received by

comrade Davidovici, along with Protocol deputy Z. Gideon, deputy director of the Oriental Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Walter (native from Târgu-Mureş), senior official of the border service and police inspector. After the Protocol deputy welcomed me on behalf of the Ministry, I thanked him and I added: “ I hope I will be able to contribute to the development of friendly relations between the two countries”. I didn’t notice that there was someone else with us, someone who I wasn’t introduced to. He was a correspondent from “AL HAMISHMAR” newspaper (MAPAM Party), who after seeing I only responded to the greeting addressed to me, asked me if I had any statement for the press. My answer was that I said everything I had to say to the representative of the Ministry. The next day it appeared in the newspaper above, all other issues (what I telegraphed you in time).

We went from Haifa to Tel Aviv in the M.F.A. car which Gideon used to come here. Tuesday September 13 I was to pay a visit to the Chief of Protocol, Dr. Simon, which I

did later on September 16, when I had the audience Minister Sharett. The audience with Sharett took place in the presence of com. Davidovici, on our behalf,

and Dr. Simon and Walter [Avidan], on their part. The audience lasted in total about 20 minutes. Sharett welcomed me on behalf of Israel, expressing, at the same time, his gratitude towards the P.R.R., which was among the first countries to recognize Israel. I responded with compliments from com. Ana Pauker, hoping to have his support in fulfilling my mission. Sharett: “I am gladly receiving the compliments from Mrs. Ana Pauker, this exceptional woman, who I don’t know personally, the leader of new Romania’s foreign policy. We are a small country with great social and external difficulties, a much disputed land. You will have our full support, but we don’t have great possibilities; therefore, you will encounter many difficulties with the settlement at first”. He also said that he will make available to me any information material I would need; but that I have all the freedom to travel wherever I want, without restriction.

I thanked him for his kindness. Sharett continued: “We will have to discuss a number of issues, clear some misunderstandings that seem to have occurred between us. Israel is a young country, established after the battles against the Ottoman Empire, against England, and recently it went through a difficult liberation war, surrounded by enemies etc., etc.”.

“The battles you fought led to the creation of Israel, but it still has to fight in order to ensure its independence”.

He spoke about the parliamentary activity, about himself, about families etc. At the end of the discussion came the photographers who “eternalized us in Israel’s

history” as Sharett said.

17

Presenting the credentials As I said on the telephone, I presented the letters on September 21, 12 o’clock, to the

President a.i. [1951-1952] Sprintzak [1885-1959] (Weizmann being away in Switzerland). Sprintzak is the President [Speaker] of Parliament [Knesset, 1949-1959]. The ceremony took place according to a schedule set in advance, which I will send to you separately.

I was accompanied by comrade Davidovici and comrade Dianu. When I gave him the letters I said in Romanian: “Mr. President, by handing you my

letters of credence, please allow me on behalf of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly of the P.R. of Romania and of its President, academician Prof. Dr. C.I. Parhon, to send the people [of] Israel and to you personally his wishes of prosperity and health. P.R.R. expresses, both on the occasion of de jure recognition of Israel, as well as through me today, its wishes for a democratic and independent development of the State of Israel. P.R.R. is willing to maintain and develop friendly relations with Israel. For my part Mr. President, I will do everything to turn all of this into reality, of course with your help and support”.

Sprintzak, replied reading “We are gladly welcoming Your Excellency, as the first ambassador of the P.R.R. in Israel. When you will see the country you will be convinced how much the Romanian Jews have contributed to the construction of Israel. I hope that this vivid and productive connection will be renewed and grow stronger. I can assure you that the Government of Israel will do everything to help you fulfil your mission to create a friendship between Romania and Israel”.

After that introductions were made and we discussed various issues, without much importance. We didn’t discuss anything about emigrations. I signed in a book and several photos were taken. We returned to the hotel following the same ceremony.

I sent verbal notes to the following legations: U.S.S.R., U.S.A., England [U.K.], France and Argentina. I didn’t send a verbal note to the Yugoslav Legation.

On September 22, I paid the first visit to the U.S.S.R. Legation, to the Chargé d’affaires Muchin; I was accompanied by comrade P. Davidovici. Mukhin speaks English and Spanish. Although I do not speak these languages, I understood very well. He was very moved by the letter I had sent him and he was very friendly. He told me that Israel is a difficult country, but we will manage, because we do not scare easily.

He responded to my verbal note, also very warmly. We didn’t pay other visits because of the New Year holidays. I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.

(Ss) Nicolae Cioroiu


18

7

REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER ,

VICE-PRIME MINISTER AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MISSION’S ACTIVIT Y

No. 165 B September 28, 1949, Tel Aviv Comrade Minister, I have the honour to inform you regarding the work of the legation and the duties of

each member of our diplomatic Office. The M.A.F. is aware of the fact that comrades Paul Davidovici and Barbu Dianu have arrived in Israel on June 22, current year1, and the undersigned on September 112.

After setting the legation’s offices and sending the press release that the legation here has started its work, the consular section had a lot of work to do: applying for registration, applications for citizenship, visa applications for return to the P.R.R. and applications for interventions needed to bring to Israel the relatives of the people here.

The legation sent to the M.A.F. most of these applications, of course after a preliminary screening.

Meanwhile, since a delegation of the State Societies arrived from Bucharest for contracting trade operations, the legation had to contact the trade world in order to ease the delegation’s work.

We began to contact the authorities, the political world, the representatives of the economic, cultural world, the press etc. and we continue to develop these contacts as we are figuring out the political climate and the healthy terrain.

Although the legation is at the beginning of its activity, yet it is studying the key issues in Israel, without escaping the daily issues of great importance.

We receive the public daily and often even on holidays. As I mentioned before, the petitioners’ requests are very diverse, and their resolution

does not always depend on us. Generally when we deal with the public we need to clarify things for them.

With the right attitude, courtesy, protocol, will succeed in solving most of the problems of those who come to the legation, thus forming a circle of friendships in order to develop our work.

We divided the work as follows: Com. B. Dianu, consular affairs and daily payments (small house). Com. P. Davidovici, economic, cultural, media affairs, he is also is the legation’s

treasurer. Com. Nicolae Cioroiu, political connections and coordination of the entire legation’s

work. As a main and current task, we set to elaborate the “Israel Dossier”, comprising six files

(based on the model of Department IV of the M.A.F.). We already began drafting the files. In order to have productive work, we established a schedule: - daily administrative meetings, brief;

1 See doc. no. 4. 2 See doc. no. 5

19

- meetings for reading the material received from the M.A.F.; - individual study of the ideological material; - the obligation to read the press in the country, to listen to the AGERPRES shows and

to process the news; - English lessons. These are our tasks, but we also have difficulties, weaknesses and lacks: - given that the legation is settled at the hotel, security is not provided; - the lack of a clerk-typist takes a lot of our time, which we spend with typing, office

matters etc.; - the lack of a courier also represents a difficulty; - since we don’t speak Hebrew, we are informed about the local news late and through a

third (translator); - we aren’t doing very well in studying Israel’s problems; - we haven’t yet established serious direct information links; - the work sessions are still lasting too long and we haven’t had them daily; - we cannot say that we have established a precise work plan, which we will fix soon; - due to settling work and the lack of personnel, there is the danger of bureaucracy and

of blockage in relation to office matters. This being our work, our difficulties and shortcomings, with your help, with a closer

connection and with the commitment that we are making to solve our shortcomings, we will strive to fulfil our mission in Israel.

I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.

(Ss) Nicolae Cioroiu


8

TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AN D MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON GRANTING THE VISAS TO THE JEWISH CITIZENS FOR EMIGR ATION

FROM ROMANIA TO ISRAEL

No. 162 October 14, 1949, Tel Aviv, 17.45 h During visits, I was received on 13 this month by Prime Minister Ben Gurion. After the

usual greetings and greetings [he] said to me: “I am worried about the fate of the Jews who want to come to Israel and do not have the permission of the government. Israel cannot grow stronger and develop only with the Jews here and it needs the Jews from abroad. The development of the relations between the two countries depends on the economic relations and on the emigration of the Jews who want to leave Romania. Please tell that to the Roman government”.

To these words, brutally highlighted by repetition and tone, I replied, “I am told for the first time formally about this matter. Your concern is based on the influence of certain propaganda. All the citizens of the P.R.R., regardless of their nationality, participate with

20

enthusiasm in building socialism in the P.R.R. The P.R.R. Government grants visas to the citizens applying. I will communicate your point of view to Bucharest”. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 65.

9

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA

IN TEL AVIV, WITH MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON

THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION

October 19, 1949, Tel Aviv

On October 19, 1949, at 11:30 I was called to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Gideon from Protocol and Walter [Avidan] from the Office for Eastern Europe were present.

Minister Sharett: “When we first met I told you that we will discuss a number of matters that seem to upset the relations between the two countries. I realize that you have your own instructions from the government. The issue is – EMIGRATIONS1 – an issue that Mr. Ben Gurion has already told you 2 that it concerns the Israeli government, an issue for which we have already reached a favourable solution for Israel with other popular democratic countries. But it will be the subject of further discussion, namely I need to finish something I have already begun during these holidays. But, Mr. Minister, for now I called you to inform you about a matter which adds to our sorrow of not being in agreement on emigration. Although the P.R.R. has stopped the emigrations started in 1948, yet it was allowing a number of 100-200 people to leave per month. Something happened lately that it is inconceivable for us, the method that the Romanian government uses to prevent even these small and insignificant departures from P.R.R. to Israel. Here’s what it is about: a number of approximately 240 people, among which 60 Polish citizens from the P.R.R., Jews who probably took refuge from Poland in 1939, and the rest Romanian citizens who obtained the passports with exit visa, who have transportation tickets are in Constanţa port for departure. But they cannot embark on the Israeli ship «Eylath» which is in the port and for which they have tickets. The Romanian authorities claim they should embark the ship «Transilvania». The Israeli government understands that the Romanian authorities are entitled to claim their departure on Romanian ships, but our legation, which organized from the very beginning the departures of all the Jews from the P.R.R., had a written document from Sovromtransport

1 A point of view at Liviu Rotman, Romanian Jewry: The First Decade after the Holocaust, in The Tragedy of Romanian Jewry (ed. Randolph L. Braham), New York, 1994. Unfortunately the Romanian Historiography did not study the problem thoroughly, partly because of its sensitivity, and especially due to the still limited access to the main sources. We intends to offer from this point of view a significant opening, all the more so as, at the present, the topic is predominantly historical. 2 Reference to the half-hour audience granted by Prime Minister Ben Gurion on October 13, 1949 to the Minister of Romania. On this occasion the Israeli leader expressed his concern about the “fate of the Jews from Romania, who wanted to come to Israel, but don’t have the permission of the Romanian government”. The development of the relations between the two countries – concluded Ben Gurion – “depends on the progress of the economic relations and on the emigration of Jews who want leave Romania” . AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged; Ibidem, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 65. According to the figures registered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of P.R. of Romania, within Mar. 6, 1945- Mar. 25, 1949 nearly 37,000 citizens of Jewish origin left the country, among which 23,860 based on collective repatriation certificates. Cf. Ibidem, founds Israel. Problem 201 /1949, unpaged.

21

Company that, given the ship «Transilvania» which was undertaking these transports in the past to Haifa, is in repair and suspending voyages suspended for a while. When the delegate for emigration from the Legation asked if in this situation he could request an Israeli ship to come from Haifa, to transport those who were there for departure, Sovromtransport, the Romanian state-owned company, replied that the delegate can send the request and he will help him. Following this written communication the delegate of the Israeli Legation the delegate of Israel Legation had the ship «Eylath» come to Constanţa port. First of all, the Israeli government does not know whether the motorship «Transilvania» has suspended its voyages for repairs or for other... reasons, perhaps other orders. Among those waiting in port, there is also an Israeli subject pregnant in nine months, who still does not have permission to leave except only with motorship «Transilvania» (she read to me a telegram in which she was made aware of this fact). It is inconceivable that a woman who wants to give birth to the baby in her country to not be able to leave by a ship under Israeli flag. These people are in the port without a roof over their heads, without any help, facing the autumn weather, hungry etc.

I called you, Mr. Minister, because all this was started by your Ministry of Foreign Affairs Minister who called minister Rubin, informing him of a fact also very curious; namely that he is not allowed to organize collective departures of Jews from the P.R.R. Our Legation in Bucharest was always in charge of the departures so far: he paid the cost of the tickets, he gathered them at the train station from Bucharest in order to group them, he prepared food for the trip, it was present for the boarding on the ship etc., all of these being known by the Romanian authorities, by Sovromtransport etc. and nobody had any objections. Now, he is presenting him with the fact that he does not have the right to organize collective departures, he cannot interfere in matters concerning the P.R.R., and that they can only leave on board of «Transilvania». Our legations from Prague, Warsaw and Bucharest have addressed the arrangements from the emigrants, and they helped the governmental authorities of the respective countries, relieving them from a pretty tough task.

Then, for the transportations made towards an Israeli port it is fair to apply reciprocity that is to be used Israeli ships as well not only Romanian”.

To this I replied: “Mr. Minister, although you declared initially that you will not get involved in the

emigrations issue, as you have proven in the case of the 240 Romanian citizens who have passports with exit visas for Israel, in what concerns the ship «Eylath», you got very involved in the emigration issue. I will inform the P.R.R. government about the matter you communicated to me in relation to the ship «Eylath». I would like to point out some issues which I find curious by the conclusions you reached. I don’t know if the ship «Transilvania» has actually suspended its travels to Haifa. I can also add that during the voyage from September 11th, it never reached Marseille harbour, because they made some repairs in Malta and they installed beds in Haifa, precisely to make regular travels to Haifa. I also don’t know what “reasons” you are talking about, or maybe «Transilvania» didn’t have passengers for the voyage that it was going to do soon after the arrival from Malta precisely because they had been taken by another ship. I think it they didn’t have beds installed in order to suspend the voyages. You also know, it’s not a secret that the only good trips are to Haifa.

Regarding the prevention of the departures, there was no reason to stop them. The Romanian authorities issued passports for them to be used for departure, and not for playing games. I also know that each state supports its national transportation companies; for example, during the war the U.S.A. allowed transportation only with its ships; Turkey still only allows passenger departures with its ships. In other terms, the U.S.A. is well known for how much it wants to use its aids granted to other states. It is absolutely normal for Romania to have an interest in Sovromtransport.

22

In what concerns the reciprocity of using the ships, I believe that it does not apply here, because this matter was never discussed, there were never discussions with anyone related to the issue of passports to the Romanian citizens, regarding the visas for exiting the P.R.R. Reciprocity functioned and is functioning for the economic contracts concluded recently between your companies and us, where the Israeli transport companies are in advantage.

It is possible that the Israeli Legation from Bucharest made a mistake when it requested the ship from Israel for Constanţa. I believe that you Legation made it impossible for us to act by bringing the ship to Constanţa without thinking about the consequences.

In what concerns the role of your Legation in organizing the Romanian citizens leaving to Israel, I find [it] very unusual. The P.R.R. authorities granted individual visas and did not organize groups, although all those in question were its citizens. Instead, your Legation did it: By what right?”

Sharett spoke again and concluded the discussion as follows: 1) In principle, an Israeli ship reaching a Romanian port can take passengers from here;

but it can never come specifically for this matter without prior agreement. 2) The Israeli ship «Eylath», currently in Constanţa, given that it arrived after the

agreement of the Legation from Bucharest with the Sovromtransport to take the shipment. Otherwise it would be disturbing for the ship to go back empty and it would upset the relations between the two countries.

3) Based on precedents and on the practices from the other capitals – Prague, Warsaw, the Israeli Legation from Bucharest should arrange the departures of those who now have the visas for Israel.

On grounds that I wanted to remember these points, I reviewed them, and I also added: “Your legation did not organize, or if it did it intervened, departures from the P.R.R., and will not be able to in the future. The P.R.R. grants individual visas to those who apply for them, and if it finds it appropriate to approve them or not, the Israeli Legation, should not confuse its right to organize collective departures because it pays for the tickets. I believe that the fact that the Legation brought the ship «Eylath» does not entail the Romanian authorities’ obligation to allow it to board passengers in Constanţa. However, Mr. Minister, I will bring them to the attention of the Roman government”.

The opinion of our Legation: 1) Sharett doesn’t care that the ship will return empty, he only cares that he will not be

able to accomplish the propaganda action of bringing the Jews with an Israeli ship. 2) The Romanian authorities should not give in the matter of the ship. Regarding the

foreign citizens it should consult documentation. 3) It should be inquired whether Sovromtransport has sent a letter to the legation that it

has permission to request an Israeli ship. 4) To be established, for future reference, the role of Israeli Legation in Bucharest in

relation to the departures of Romanian citizens Jews. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged. See also Ibidem, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 130-131. (Telegram no. 220 din 9 Nov. 1949, 9.33 h).

23

10

TELEGRAM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV REGARDING

CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 4 189 November 5, 1949, Bucharest, 21.00 h About the audience with Sharett call immediately the Israeli M.A.F. and announced it

because since Monday, November 7, is a legal holiday, you may want to postpone the meeting for another day.

If he insists, you will go on Monday. For your information: the minister of Israel was communicated on Saturday the protest

of the P.R.R. government to the actions directed against the P.R.R. and the P.R.R. government, which took place recently in Israel. The protest referred first of all Ben Gurion’s speech, which attacked the P.R.R. government (I didn’t mention especially the attack against Comrade Ana Pauker1).

He was told that we had heard such insults from the source in America, but they haven’t reached their purpose like all the hostile attacks in the imperialist camp. He was also informed about the hostile demonstration in front of the Legation, which was supported by the Israeli authorities. He was reminded of the situation the ship «Transilvania» which was entered by force and threatened with weapons, against all international law regulations. I stressed that it should be clear to them that the matter of the Romanian citizens Jews, who would like to go to Israel, is a matter concerning only the authorities P.R.R. and nobody can interfere.

In the meeting that you will have with Sharett, you should remain distant, avoiding any personal discussion or any exchange of views, of any kind.

If Sharett will communicate anything to you, you should keep your response short and tell him you will pass it to the government. If you believe, in that moment, that this communication or the tone of the communication is unacceptable, you shall reject them personally. Regarding the protest of the P.R.R. government presented to Rubin, if Sharett brings up the issue, do not discuss anything, mentioning that you have nothing to add or comment in addition what Rubin communicated.

Keep us posted regarding any event in connection with the above mentioned matters.

(Ss) Ana Toma2)

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 123-124.

1) Reference to the speech given by Prime Minister Ben Gurion on Oct. 28, 1949, in Bath Yam, in front of the MAPAI activists. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 210/1949, unpaged. See also “Scânteia”, Year XVIII, no. 1585, Nov. 18, 1949, p. 4. Responding to the Note of protest of the Romanian Government Nov. 5, 1949, sent through Minister Rubin, the Israeli M.F.A., replied on Nov. 15: “Dans le discours du Premier Ministre d’Israël contre lequel est dirigé la protestation du Gouvernement roumain, ni aucun de ses membres n’ont été mentionnés. Il n’y avait aucune intention de porter atteinte à l’amour-propre du Gouvernement roumain, et si celui ci s’est senti visé, le Ministre des Affaires étrangères ne peut qu’exprimer ses regrets” . Ibidem, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged. The tense situation occurred after the dispute, intensified due to the disagreements regarding the issue of emigration, would create international reactions and a “propaganda battle” on different channels. Following these events, Minister Rubin decided to resign his position in Bucharest. 2) Ana Toma, Romanian politician and diplomat. First adviser in London (Dec. 1, 1947-May 8, 1948), Secretary General of M.F.A. until Feb. 1, 1949, then ministerial adviser with special attributions and deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (Jan. 17, 1951-Jul. 26, 1952). Afterwards she occupied important positions within the Ministry of Commerce, UCECOM etc.

24

11


THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE MEETING WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS ON

THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 220 November 9, 1949, Tel Aviv, 9.33 h I was received in audience by Sharett on November 8 this year, at 6 p.m. He reproached

my firm tone with his words. He will communicate to Rubin that the answer should be handed the P.R.R. government.

Sharett said: “The creation and existence of Israel are the work of Zionism. Immigration is the political axis of the Israel’s government. The Jews in Romania are a determinant factor in Israel. P.R.R., the enemy of Zionism and of the government refuses talks, they didn’t reply to the letter, they attack us, they arrest Zionists, they don’t keep their promise on immigration given to Namir1), Agami2), Eliasiv not received formally, all of these reflect the position of the P.R.R. government as being completely opposite to diplomatic relations. There cannot be diplomatic relations between the two countries with completely opposite points of view, especially regarding emigration, as it was communicated to Rubin”.

The demonstrations in Israel, in the Prime Minister’s speech, the press justifies itself based on immigration. I replied that I had nothing to add to what Rubin said. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 130.

12


THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE TENSION INCURRED IN THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 236 November 21, 1949, Tel Aviv, 21 h

I have the honour to inform you about the following, regarding the recall of Rubin and

Agami1): For the past two days the entire media is been saying that this is because of P.R.R.

refusal to discuss immigration namely “Rubin’s energetic intervention, Sharett’s letter, the communications of the Prime Minister and of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the

1) Reference to the so-called agreement concluded between Ana Pauker and Mordechai Namir, the envoy of the Israeli provisional government to Bucharest, in July 1948, regarding the emigration of 5 000 Jews/month from Romania. See, details, at Robert Levy, Ana Pauker and the mass emigration of Romanian Jewry (1950-1952), in The Jews in the Romanian History. Papers from the International Symposium, Bucharest, September 30-October 4, 1996, coord. Ion Stanciu, Bucharest, 1998, pp. 213-220, with an important bibliography. 2) Moshe Agami (Auerbach), Israeli diplomat, Special Envoy of the Provisional Government in Bucharest since the fall of 1948, afterwards Counsellor within the legation until Dec. 1949. 1) On Dec. 12, 1949, the first diplomatic representative of the State of Israel in Bucharest left Romania, the legation’s problems being endorsed by Eliezer Halevi, first secretary, as Chargé d’affaires a.i.

25

interventions with the Soviet government, etc. have not determined P.R.R. to change its attitude. The two will not be replaced. They say that Israeli Legation will be turned into a Consulate General (which would not cause discord [...] in Israel’s relations with the Eastern countries). Sharett will have to make use of his presence to the U.N. to obtain clarifications from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. related to the issue of the relations with the Eastern bloc.

The recall happens during difficult times between Bucharest and Tel Aviv and they reflect the strained relations between [the] two countries.

The Israeli government had for a long time the intention to make a demonstrative gesture that would overcome diplomatic relations, but, after the clarification during the protests of the Romanian government, the idea was burned, leading to recalling the minister and the counsellor. The Israeli government maintained its decision for recall even after the arrival and announcing new immigrants from Romania. The P.R.R. government could recall the minister and perhaps not because it [the legation – our ref.] was appointed by the Kominform to lead the Israeli Communist Party, especially by Jewish counsel Davidovici, write the newspapers.

The newspapers repeat the allegations against Romania. Regarding their rattle and their allusions, the dissolution of the legation from Bucharest,

whether I am recalled or not, please analyze the situation and see whether it would not be appropriate to respond with similar recalls.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 161-162.

13

REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO

ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINIST ERS AND MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING

THE LEGATION’S ACTIVITY

No. 345 November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv

In response to your address no. 2 946 dated October 17, current year 1), I have the honour to communicate the following:

We receive the newspaper “Scânteia” in 2 copies and “Roumanie Nouvelle”2) in 25 copies (not 50 as you mentioned in your address above) par avion and the other newspapers by mail.

As we mentioned in our address dated November 30, current year, the packages with the newspapers that arrived on December 3rd and 8th were opened completely and the newspaper “UNIREA” was missing.

Starting June 1949 since the setup of the P.R.R. Legation in Israel, I received “Roumanie Nouvelle” four times.

1) See AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged. The address signed by the head of Direction IV Relations, George Macovescu, was referring to Report no. 1 of the Legation, mentioning that it “reflected exactly” the progress on the organization of the legation’s activity and “personal” knowledge of the local situation. At the same time, there were indicated the main subjects that had to be included in the materials to be sent monthly to Bucharest. See Ibidem, founds Israel. Problem 217/1948-1949 (cultural), unpaged. 2) Newspaper published in Bucharest starting March 5, 1948 until 1958.

26

I received by courier the brochures with songs, the portraits of our leaders, “Lupta de clasa”3), “Probleme externe”4) etc., and via mail I received the articles accompanied by photos. Until now I couldn’t use the photos, because the conditions here didn’t give me the possibility. Instead, based on the articles sent by you, as well as those appeared in newspapers from the country, we provided the Israeli Communist Party’s newspaper with material in Romanian, for the column: “Ştiri din P.R.R.” (News from the P.R.R.).

As soon as we will relocate from the hotel to the new premises, we will install an exhibition with the photographs received in the Legation’s reception hall, and we will make invitations to show it.

Regarding your suggestion to install panels in windows, as constant means of popularizing the achievements of our country, we are responding that for now we have the possibility to do this “LEPAC” bookstore from Tel Aviv and Haifa and making inquiries to broaden these possibilities. As soon as we have a solid arrangement, we will notify you and we will request material appropriate to the matters discussed here.

Also in the new place, we decided to project the films “23 August,” and “The City Never Sleeps” at a films gala.

We disseminate the material received, as well as the 25 copies of “Roumanie Nouvelle” according to the schedule mentioned in our address no. 346 dated November 30, current year. As we mentioned in this address, we are not aware yet of the impression it had in the circles where we distribute these newspapers, as to the placement of our articles and photos in the press, we can say that, besides the office of the Israeli Communist Party, no newspaper is in our favor or at least neutral in publishing the articles concerning us.

We will be sending you daily by registered mail, starting November 27 current year, one copy of the following local newspapers: “Kol Haam”, “ Al Hamishmar”, “ Davar”, “ Palestine Post”, and weekly two copies of “Glasul Poporului”, “ Renaşterea Noastră”, “ Journal de Jérusalem”, “ L’Aurore”, “ Frei Israel” and “Neuer Welt” and twice a month “Business Digest”, all of them on the day of their issue.

Also, we will send by courier, all the newspapers issued in Romanian. Currently, due to the lack of personnel we cannot release press reports on how various

newspapers take a stand on more important domestic and international matters, as well as the occasional reports on various cultural issues.

Since we have the possibility of a wider dissemination, please send us 75 copies of “Roumanie Nouvelle”.


AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20, 200, 210/1950, unpaged.

3) Theoretical and political body of C.C. of the R.L.P. Founded in 1920, then published in 1934, and starting Aug.-Sept. 1948 uninterrupted until 1989. 4) Magazine edited by the Romanian-Soviet Studies Institute from Bucharest within 1948-1952.

27

14

REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER , MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING

THE CONVERSATION WITH MOSHE SHARETT, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL,

ON THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS WITHIN THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 347 November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv Confidential Following your telegram No. 4 2581) din 12 November current year, dated November

12, current year, I have the honour to give you the details of the discussions I had with the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Moshe Sharett, on November 8, current year2)

On November 3, current year we received a phone call from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs saying that Minister Sharett was inviting me on November 7, at 10.30, for communications. On the same day, he called to change the time due to the opening of the parliamentary session and to ask to postpone the meeting for the afternoon the same day.

After receiving your communication that November 7 is a public holiday, we notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in this respect, setting the meeting jointly on November 8.

The discussion lasted from 5.30 to 6.45. Director Eliasiv was present for this conversation and an interpreter, who also acted as

stenographer. He typed everything that Sharett told me. Sharett spoke in French, and I spoke in Romanian. Sharett spoke the entire time in a

firm voice and maintained a distant attitude. He began by reminding me that, ever since our first meeting, he told me he wanted to discuss the immigration issue.

“The State of Israel – began Sharett – was born after the continuous struggle led by the Zionist movement before, during and after the Second World War. Without the Zionists there would be no State of Israel, the government or the diplomatic representatives. Without Zionism and Zionists, Israel would remain a colony without importance, disregarded and at the mercy of everyone. The Halutian youth, prepared in its country of origin, has created the state by the labour and sacrifice. They left their homes, their parents and they came here. Due to the misunderstandings between governments, these young people are put in a position of not achieving their goal for which they prepared and to fight for the consolidation of the state. The P.R. of Romania has inside its borders the largest number of Jews in the Eastern European countries. Without the Jews from the people’s democracies, Israel cannot exist, it cannot get stronger.

The other people’s democracies allowed the Jews to leave. Discussions were conducted with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. Yugoslavia, when it was part of your camp also allowed the departure of the Jews. All these countries solved the emigration issue in a satisfactory manner, Hungary allowed at first, and then prevented emigration, but today we are having discussions again and hope for a favourable resolution. Only Romania, with which our special emissaries Namir and Agami held discussions and agreed to the emigration of 5,000 Jews, only allow 3,000-4,000 young people to go to Israel.

1) AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949. 2) See doc. no. 10.

28

The ship «Transilvania» brings Jews from Romania and we are grateful for it. But it is far from calling it emigration. We want a mass emigration from Romania.

Emigration is the cardinal point in Israel’s policy and we cannot imagine diplomatic relations between the two countries having completely opposite point of view regarding this issue. How important are diplomatic relations if Romania cannot maintain this position?

Inconceivable things happened. For example: the attacks in the J.D.C.3), press, the media in general cannot have this attitude without the government’s consent. Your press published articles full of hatred towards Israel and the Israeli Government. Ben Gurion is caricatured and Minister Remetz4) is attacked and shown as Hitlerian. They have the same attitude towards Zionism. The Rabbis are trained to preach in the synagogues against Zionism and Zionist leaders are arrested. The jails in Israel are not full with political opponents. Eliasiv, who was inspecting his “district”, without having a special mission, was received in the other countries he visited by the respective authorities. He was even received by Mr. Gromyko5). In Romania he wasn’t received by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and he failed to meet anyone. This is Mr. Eliasiv’s only failure. This attitude of the Romanian authorities reflects the Romanian government’s policy towards Israel.

With all the differences between me and Mrs. Pauker, I have searched for a common language and I wrote her a personal letter. This letter, although submitted through Rubin, remained without an answer. This procedure is unimaginable.

Just like in the case of the Israeli ship «Eylath»6) the influence of the Romanian government intervenes. The attitude of some citizens from Israel towards the P.R.R. is explained by the P.R.R. government’s policy on the emigration the Jews from Israel.

The media in Israel never attacked the Romanian government. Rubin was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was communicated the

Romanian government’s point of view: no discussions on Jews’ migration issue are accepted. Any attempt to discussions on this topic was rejected.

These rejections from the P.R.R. government determine the Israeli government to think about the diplomatic relations between Israel and P.R.R.

Mr. Minister, here’s what I want you to tell to your government I communicated to Mr. Rubin to tell the same thing to your Government” – concluded Sharett.

To this I replied: “I will inform the P.R.R. government on your point of view. However, personally, I would like to respond to some issues raised by you. I will not discuss the Zionism matter, but my opinion is that the State of Israel was born following the battle of the masses here and the international conditions after World War II.

Since you mentioned acts hostility and you gave examples, allow me to give you examples of acts of hostility from your government. I am not aware of the P.R.R. Prime

3) J.D.C. = The Jewish Democratic Committee, consisting of Jewish communist militants from Romania. Alexandre Shafran writes in his memoirs that: “Those who were part of the J.D.C., militant Jewish communists, believed that they should represent all the Jewish interests with the Party and the community, even if they despised the Jewish values and they betrayed everybody’s interests. They were using the Jews as a political “commodity” and they exploited them for own purposes. For example, in order to prove the “sincerity” of their commitment they would not hesitate to request for coercive measures to be taken against their coreligionists... ”. See Alexandru Şafran, Un tăciune smuls flăcărilor, Hasefer Publishing House, Bucharest, 1996, p. 168. 4 Moshe David Remetz (Drabkin) (1886-1951), Israeli politician. Former Secretary General of Histadrut (1935-1945), he was Minister of Transportation (1948-1950). 5) Andrei A. Gromyko (1909-1989), Soviet diplomat, he held the position of deputy (1946-1949) and first deputy to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (1949-1952, 1953-1957). He also represented the U.S.S.R. to the U.N. (1946-1948); ambassador in London (Jun. 1952-Apr. 1953), Washington and Havana. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1957-1985). President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (Jul. 22, 1985- Oct. 10, 1988). 6) See AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1949, unpaged. It’s about the detention in Constanţa harbour of the Israeli ship «Eylath» that was transporting emigrants. (See also Verbal Note of the Israeli M.F.A. addressed to the Romanian Legation on Dec. 29, 1949, Ibidem).

29

Minister having attacked Israel or a minister of the Israeli government, but Mr. Ben Gurion, did, on October 28, current year, attack the people’s democracy regime, our government and our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is the reality, whether Mr. Ben Gurion focused on the issue, which you called central, of immigration. The P.R.R. government did not organize hostile demonstrations against Israel, but a hostile demonstration was organized against the P.R.R. Legation in Tel Aviv, focused on the same issue of immigration.

The issues that you have brought to my attention officially, I knew about them long before the atmosphere created by the media and on the street.

You want to build your state with elements outside your borders. We build Socialism in our country only with elements from inside our borders, without making any distinction based on nationality, religion etc.

I know you wrote a letter to Mrs. Ana Pauker. A personal letter can only be answered with yes or no.

I reject your assertion that the rabbis from the P.R.R. had received instructed to speak in a certain way. They spoke as they thought and it would have been coercion if people would have been forbidden to speak their minds.

A campaign for attack and slander was started against the P.R.R. We know the source of this campaign. Just like in the past, it never has and never will succeed.

Moreover, when the Israeli government asked to be recognized by the P.R.R. government, it never imposed the emigration condition, and the P.R.R. granted recognition without thinking about it”.

Sharett replied: “The demonstration was not organized by the government, or by any established group. It is entirely justified by the state of mind of those who are separated from their families”.

My answer: “It is not a group, it is an actual atmosphere created by Mr. Ben Gurion’s speech and the press here”.

Sharett continues: “Mr. Ben Gurion’s speech doesn’t include an attack on the people’s democracy regime from Romania and he didn’t speak of Mrs. Pauker in an insulting way. Ben Gurion’s speech was filled with pain due to the misunderstanding of the P.R.R. government regarding the immigration issue. About the letter, maybe in your country there is a way of not responding to a letter addressed by one Ministry of Foreign Affairs to another Ministry of Foreign Affairs and transmitted through the plenipotentiary minister. I register”.

My answer: “I don’t want to argue, but personally I would like to tell you that the manifestation at our Legation was hostile, you know better than I how many there were, you know they insulted our government and regime. Mr. Ben Gurion attacked the regime in our country. It would be interesting if you knew what the participants to the demonstration were talking about the Zionists who urged them to leave the P.R.R. – and about Zionism in general”.

In conclusion I said I had nothing more to add to what Mr. Rubin had communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest.

We parted unfriendly. These were the details I wanted to bring to your attention, in addition to the telegram. I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.


30

15

TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AN D MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER , MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING

THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAPAM PARTY 1)

No. 361 December 8, 1949, Tel Aviv Confidential I have the honour to submit to you below notes on the conversation of comrade

P. Davidovici with Riftin2), secretary of MAPAM Party, Member of Parliament. Ever since our arrival in Israel, the MAPAM Party wanted to have a conversation with

us; ten days ago, they requested again a meeting with comrade Davidovici. This way I set the meeting on December 6, at the legation.

The meeting lasted an hour and a quarter. After the initial introductions, Riftin asked a general question about how things work in

the P.R.R., to which he was replied that in the P.R.R. Socialism is built fast and safe. When he asked which are the cultural bodies of Romanian Labour Party he was told: countless party schools and universities, the magazine “Lupta de clasă”, the newspaper “Scânteia”, the Party Political Bureau, libraries, cinemas, the literacy action, education reform, etc.

Then trying to talk about Kostov’s trial 3) and about Gomulka’s case4), Riftin was told that those were matters that concerned the respective parties.

Riftin asks our opinion about Israel, he said he’s sure we had imagined it one way and we found it differently. At this comment he was told that, since we haven’t managed to get to know Israel all this time since we arrived and to speak to him, who knows it so well, by talking to a person of so much importance in Israel’s life, we will have the opportunity to find out interesting things about his country. He became quiet for a moment, and then he began to speak, giving the presentation below in approximately 55 minutes:

In Israel there is a series of fundamental issues: 1. Israel and the Atlantic Pact [N.A.T.O. – our ref.] 2. The relation between the State of Israel and the Jews from other countries;

1) MAPAM (Mifleget-Poa’alei Hamenhedet-United Workers Party), Israeli Zionist-Socialist party, initially with certain Marxist-Leninist tendencies; founded in 1948 resulted from the merger of the movement Hashomer Hatzair with Ahdut Haavoda party (fraction detached from the main MAPAI party in 1945-1946), to which joined the small labour group Po’alei Zionsmal. Its objects consisted of: bringing to Israel the Jews from all around the world and socialism victory. During the first elections from Jan. 25, 1949 it obtained 19 seats in the Parliament (Knesset), at those from Jul. 30, 1951-15 seats. Following the elections from Nov. 1955, although it only obtained 9 seats, MAPAM entered the governmental coalition (1955-1961), having two portfolios (Health and Development). The party’s official publication was “Al Hamishmar” (On watch), with an initial circulation of 8-10,000 copies. 2) Ya'acov Riftin (1907-1978), Israeli politician, leader of MAPAM Party. 3) Reference to the trial of the group of Bulgarian communists, lead by Traicho Kostov (1897-1949) which took place within Dec. 7-14, 1949. Member of C.C. of the illegal Bulgarian C.P., he was accused of having “subversive relations”, during his stay in the U.S.S.R. (1933-1934), with the “trotkists” Kun Béla and Lavretki; and then having gotten close to the Yugoslav leader I.B. Tito, being accused, at the same time, of espionage for the British in 1944. During the trial Kostov withdrew everything he had declared under terror. He was sentenced to death on Dec. 14, 1949 and executed. 4) Wladysław Gomułka (1905-1982), Polish politician. Member of the Polish C.P. since 1926; he studied at the “V.I. Lenin” Academy from Moscow (1934-1935). Secretary General of the P.C.P. (Nov. 1943); member of the Political Office (1945-1948), arrested within 1951-1956 and rehabilitated on Apr. 1, 1956. First secretary of the C.C. of the Polish U.W.P. (1956-1970). In 1972 he withdrew from politics.

31

3. The progressive forces from Israel; 4. So many current issues that every day brings new problems. Israel is not part of the Atlantic Pact yet. I said yet, because it has all the prerequisites to

become one. The fact that we are not yet is due to the contradictions between the British and the Americans. The leader of our country can juggle same as it can be juggled due to the contradictions existing between the Arab states. I cannot say for how long this is going to work, but I can say that the Americans are not happy with Ben Gurion’s policy. The Americans want a net situation. After I completed my mandate 5) and I got rid of the English, I cannot say that there is a strong American influence in the country, but there is an infiltration, which grows constantly growing and in different ways – political, economic, financial.

How long this infiltration will last and when it will change “quantity into quality” I cannot say. If there won’t be a war things will be good for Israel, but if the war starts, we, the MAPAM Party, will not allow Israel to become the starting point for an attack on the U.S.S.R.

When I read Mikunis’ article6) appeared in “Pentru o pace trainică, pentru democraţie populară” (For long lasting peace, for people’s democracy)7), I told Mikunis that I agree with his expose, that Israel owes its independence to the fight of the Jewish people against the British and to the help of the Soviet Union and of the countries of people’s democracy, but something is missing, a third point is missing, namely the lack of mentioning the activities of those activities who made possible the existence of a Jewish population in Palestine and which could be helped, they had who to help. (Here Riftin referred to the Zionist movement). See, this is the truth. We did something really great here. It is true that the Jewish people, scattered all over the world, does not meet the conditions of a nation according to the Stalinist theory, and in this regard I am a Stalinist, said Riftin, but it lacks a territory. It doesn’t have a language. Let’s give it a language. I believe that the people’s democracies and the Soviet Union will send the Jewish masses to Israel when it will be a socialist state, more than now (!), because it is clear that the socialist countries will send the Jews to create socialism in their own country. Besides, it wasn’t the Communists who created a contrary and hostile attitude for Zionism and Palestine; it was the Bund8) which, by its position, its claims of cultural autonomy, was a nationalist factor and fought by Lenin. Lenin never discussed the Palestine matter. During his regime Palestine seemed like a utopia, but today it is a reality.

Certainly not the Americans, as they are, could send us Jews now, only the socialist states in a socialist Israel. 5) During the First World War, Great Britain conducted military operations in the Near East against the Ottoman Empire, promising to the Arab population to create a new independent state, which would also include Palestine. On Nov. 2, 1917, the British government published the “Balfour Declaration” , document stipulating the establishment in Palestine of a “national home for the Jewish people”. After occupying Palestine during World War I, London later legalized this conquering through the mandate entrusted by the League of Nations in 1922. The mandate was obligating the British authorities to contribute to bringing the Jews from this territory, the Jewish organizations being granted concessions for this purpose. By encouraging the immigration of Jews to Palestine, 323,000 Jews settled here within 1919-1939. In May 1935, Great Britain published the “White Paper”, where, among others, it promised to renounce in 1949 the mandate and to create in Palestine an independent state which would have a proportional representation of Arabs and Jews in the governmental bodies. During the Second World War, Palestine’s territory continued to be under British mandate; it ended on May 14, 1948. 6) Shmuel (Samuel) Mikunis (1903-1982), Secretary General of the Israeli Communist Party and Member of Knesset since 1949. 7) This is about the magazine of the Informative Bureau of the communist and labour parties (Kominform) through which the Kremlin’s position was made popular; it was first published in 1947 in Belgrade, and since 1949 in Bucharest in Russian, French, English, German, Spanish etc., including Romanian. It was also distributed in the non-communist countries, encouraging world communist movement. It was last published in 1956. 8) Bund, also known as the Jewish Bund, the General Union of Jewish Workers in Lithuania, Poland and Russia, was a body dealing with the abolition of discrimination against Jews in these countries.

32

I cannot say the same about the Arab communists: they are tied to their masses. There are revolutionary forces in Israel. About the Communist Party of Israel, I can tell

you that it is not a good party, so I wouldn’t use stronger words. I noticed the following extremely weak points in the I.C.P.:

a. there is very little proletariat in the party, a very thin blanket. It is however true that the proletariat is formed only now here. We don’t have an old proletariat and its elite, but as little they are, that they are missed (I.C.P.).

b. weak leadership elements. These people don’t meet the conditions for the position they hold, neither in theory nor as prestige. Please believe me – said Riftin – I am personally friend with them, but this is the truth.

c. the Communist Party lacks the Leninist organizational principle, namely there is no organizational principle. I.C.P. is made of groups and small groups.

d. I.C.P. is fractured by the masses, and we know what that means for a Leninist party. In Israel there is a force and it is a real revolutionary force. This is us – the MAPAM

party. We have organization strength all over the country. We have a number of trained leaders, put in place. We also represent a force among the army.

Israel doesn’t need two revolutionary parties. One party is enough, but in order to accomplish this union, considering that the Israeli’s revolutionary spirit is very developed, two things are needed: MAPAM needs to get closer to Leninism and the Communist Party to Zionism. I know you don’t share this point of view – said Riftin to comrade Davidovici - but this is reality. I’m not saying that MAPAM is Israel’s Communist Party. Our MAPAM party has struggles and groups, but all those discussions and internal fighting will lead towards Leninism.

Yesterday I attended one of the most interesting sessions of the Parliament. Some bourgeois newspapers have tried to show that the discussion would have resulted in an anti-Soviet atmosphere, but it is not true. With us it is not difficult to create an anti-Soviet power. Most of our population is drawn to the West, which is why it learns so easily an anti-communism action. But I repeat – said Riftin – there was not such atmosphere in the Parliament.

Even Ben Gurion behaved himself, and that is a big deal, because it happens very rarely. Ben Gurion’s thesis that Jerusalem is to us what Moscow is to the Russians and Washington to the Americans, and that we will be removed from Jerusalem only by force is not a simple phrase or figure of speech, it is a reality. What I didn’t like about Ben Gurion’s speech was the fact that he did not mention the English dangers in case of ceding the old Jerusalem to Abdala9), as if this danger did not exist. On behalf of the MAPAM Party I said (before I write for you the speech I gave in the Parliament you should know that the U.S.S.R.’s position is the most fair to Jerusalem’s problem. I heard Tsarapkin10) speak at the U.N. in May. What a remarkable personality! These U.S.S.R. men have such prestige. For example, when Gromyko was leading to the rostrum, that whole bunch of Americans, English and the others were paying attention to hear him. I believe Gromyko is the greatest personality I have ever met at the UN. Vyshinsky11) is a great personality; his success and prestige are huge. But, in my

9) Abdalah Ibn Hussein (1882-1951), King of Jordan (1946-1951). Emir of Transjordan since 1921, he was always a supporter of pro-British politics; he was assassinated by members of a terrorist organization. 10) Semion Konstantinovich Tsarapkin (1906-1984), Soviet diplomat. Director of 2 East Department (1939-1944), of the U.S.A. Department (1944-1947); Minister-Counsellor at the U.S.S.R. Embassy from Washington (1947-1949); Deputy Permanent Representative to the U.N. (1949-1954), director of the International Organizations Department (1954-1964), adviser of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (1964-1966), ambassador in Bonn (1966-1971), special assignments ambassador (1975-1979). 11) Andrei Januarevich Vyshinsky (1883-1954), Soviet attorney and diplomat. First deputy of the People’s Commissars for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1946-1949); Minister of Foreign Affairs (1949-1953) and first deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R. (1953-1954).

33

opinion, Gromyko is greater. Gromyko has the great quality of speaking briefly and concisely. Hearing him speak from the U.N. rostrum it feels like the entire Soviet heavy artillery unleashed: I showed in the Parliament that at the time of the UN Decision from November 29, 194712), I was in favour of internationalizing Jerusalem into the general framework of the issue, believing that it would be administered by the two democratic countries: the State of Israel and the Arab Palestine. Now, however, I showed in the Parliament, said – Riftin – that Jerusalem is menaced by two dangers, namely: the first threat to peace would be crossing the border through the heart of the city town and there would be constant disagreements that would endanger the peace; the second distress would be that the English behind the Abdala, would be in the city. Therefore, I proposed for the entire city, old and new, to be within the Israel’s borders and for the U.N. to find a solution for the “holy places”.

Wilner13) a spoke on behalf of the I.C.P., not as a citizen of Israel, but as a man expressing somebody else’s point of view, in this case the U.S.S.R.’s. However, the Soviet Union doesn’t need someone else to defend its point of view. I know there is a line and this line is given by Moscow. But if a French Communist would have spoken in his country’s Parliament to defend a point of view, he would have first spoken as a French patriot, making sure does not get it wrong. If Wilner said fair things about the Soviet Union, I find it was a great loss that his speech lacked the I.C.P.’s point of view.

I find it very disturbing that the Parliament laughed at Wilner. When a communist leader expresses his point of view, even if other members do not agree with him, they are not allowed to make fun of the communist leader.

This is what I was talking about earlier about the I.C.P. leaders from here. Begin14), the leader of the Lehi Party (the Fascist Party), claimed that Jerusalem should

be proclaimed immediately the capital of Israel. But this is not the substance of the issue. The question is whether Jerusalem will remain in Israel [missing text – our. ref.] and of Israel or of Abdala. The proclamation of the Capital is something that can happen or not. None of the others who spoke brought anything new.

With these words Riftin ended what he had to say. Through all of these, comrade Davidovici did nothing but listen. Our opinion is that Riftin aims at making favourable propaganda for MAPAM among

the U.S.S.R. Diplomats and the countries of people’s democracy.


12) According to Resolution no. 181 (II) adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Nov. 29, 1947, the city of Jerusalem and its surroundings have been declared international area – under the U.N. administration, by the Trusteeship Council. This regime was supposed to last for 10 years, and then to organize a referendum. 13) Meir Wilner (Vilner, 1918-2003), secretary of the C.C. of the I.C.P. 14) Menachem Begin (1913-1992), Israeli lawyer and politician. Born in Brest-Litovsk, was leader of the Zionist resistance during World War II, engaging into the combat for freeing the “promised land”. He opposed the British plan to divide Palestine (1947). Founder (1948), and later on president of the political movement HERUT (Freedom), leader of Knesset’s right-wing opposition. In 1974, leading the LIKUD regrouping (created in 1974 from the parliament bloc Gahal-Herut and the Liberal party, the Free Centre – dissidents from Herut and the State list – dissidents from Rafi Party, since 1968) won the elections, being Prime Minister until 1983.

34

16

TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AN D MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER , MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING

HIS CONVERSATION AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO

CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 362 December 8, 1949, Tel Aviv Confidential I have the honour of communicating to you the following: On November 25, current year I told you in telegram no. 2601), that I was invited to the

M.A.F. by the Eastern European director Dr. Eliasiv. I was asked if: 1. The P.R.R. government would grant a visa to a special envoy – chief officer of the

Israeli M.F.A. – in order to take the response of the Israeli government to the protests of the P.R.R. government in the matter of Prime Minister Ben Gurion’s speech, and whether he would be received in audience immediately by comrade minister Ana Pauker and comrade Gr[igore] Preoteasa2)».

2. The P.R.R. government admits that Israeli ships can as well transport Romanian citizens from Constanta to Haifa.

I am adding to my telegram above: I told Eliasiv that, as I discussed before with Sharett, Romanian citizens are transported

by Romanian ships, and if the Romanian company “Sovromtransport” is needed, this will affect other ships. Then Eliasiv responded that his government would like to know if the port of Constanta is prohibited to Israeli ships. Also, he would like to apply the principle of reciprocity.

To this question I replied that the port of Constanţa was never forbidden to the Israeli ships that had shipments within the trade contract this summer and that I found his question inappropriate. Moreover, I know that within the same contract most of the shipments were executed by Israeli ships. In terms of reciprocity, I responded that this claim is not justified. This is not about an agreement or understanding for the Romanian citizens who want to leave abroad, so reciprocity is out of the question.

Eliasiv was trying to say that if the P.R.R. will not grant permission to the Israeli ships to perform the shipments above, Israel will limit or prohibit the entry of motorship «Transilvania» in the port of Haifa.

When I received your telegram no. 4 4443) on November 28, current year, I went to Eliasiv at the M.F.A., and I communicated him your answer.

1) See AMFA, Telegrams matter. Tel Aviv, 1949. 2) Grigore Preoteasa (1915-1957), Romanian politician and diplomat. Graduate of the Faculty of Letters from Bucharest (1915), communist militant, served time several times (1935-1937, 1940-1944); editor-in-chief of “Free Romania” newspaper (1944-1945), director of the General Directorate of Press (1945-1947; appointed Secretary General of the M.F.A. (Nov. 14, 1947), Minister plenipotentiary cl. I (Jan. 26, 1948), first Counsellor with the Legations from Washington (May 20, 1948), deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (Jan. 14, 1949). Member of C.C. of the R.L.P. (1952-1957) and then since Jul. 1967 alternate member of the Political Office and secretary of C.C. of the R.L.P.; Minister of Foreign Affairs (Oct. 3, 1955-Jul. 16, 1957). See also the book The Death of Grigore Preoteasa: The Vnukovo Airport Catastrophe (1957). The Memoirs of Mihai Novicov, issue by Mihai Pelin, Bucharest, 1998. 3) See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949.

35

To the communication, Eliasiv said, “Good. Of course, if the P.R.R. government does not accept for the Israeli government to send a special envoy, we use the path of the legation – the normal and permanent way.” To the second issue, to mention what the Israeli government understands by reciprocity, Eliasiv requested some time to give the response in written. So far I haven’t received this response. For my orientation, please communicate to me what was the response that they wanted to send by special envoy. On this occasion, I would like to suggest that, when you send a communication or a protest to the Israeli Legation in Bucharest, I should have a copy in order to be up to date with everything related to Israel. I would also like to know if you consider that it wouldn’t be better for me to send the same communication to Tel Aviv at the same time. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20, 200, 210/1950, unpaged.

17


THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CONSULATE IN JERUSALEM

No. 276 December 13, 1949, Tel Aviv, 22.10 h Given the situation after the U.N. Resolution about internationalizing Jerusalem1)», we

are wondering if we should establish a consulate in Jerusalem. It seems that the Soviets are establishing one. Most countries, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, already have one.

The Prime Minister ruled just before U.N. meeting for transferring the Capital there. The Herut Party2) and other like it are pushing in the same direction. Opinions are divided within the government coalition. It is possible that in the coming days a transformation may occur, in fact, at least symbolically. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 208.

1) See note 12, doc. no. 15. 2) The Herut Party (Movement for freedom) was founded in 1948 as a nationalist, right-wing party, by the merge of “Jabotinski” group with the military group Irgun Zwei Leumi. Its program, spread through “Freedom” newspaper, was in favour of a Palestine embedded entirely into the State of Israel and of bringing here all the Jews from all around the world. Internally, it was in favour of the “private initiative in the economic and social structure of the state”, for the justice reform and the adoption of a Constitution which would guarantee the freedom of the individual, the citizens’ rights and the supremacy of the law. Externally it was pro-American. In 1955 it became the second party (15 seats in the Parliament) and the main opposition.

36

18


THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA IN RELAT ION TO THE MINISTER RUBIN’S RECALL

No. 376 December 20, 1949, Tel Aviv, 23.40 h In response to telegram no. 4 7781) Rubin was formally received at the disembarkation, saying that he would give the press

statements about the situation in Romania on emigration. The government newspapers are writing that immigration is the result of Rubin’s

activity. The newspaper published: the hostile demonstrations, the Prime Minister’s speech, the attack against the Democratic Jewish Committee, as well as the threat of breaking relations have determined the Romanian government to allow emigration. If the P.R.R. government will not change its hostile attitude towards Zionism and Israel, Rubin’s place remains unoccupied. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 208.

19

REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINIST ERS AND

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CELEBRATION OF THE REPUBLIC’S DAY IN ISRAEL

No. 60 January 5, 1950, Tel Aviv Comrade Minister, I have the honour to report on how we celebrated the two years anniversary since the

Romanian People’s Republic was proclaimed. Media mobilization As you well know, in Israel the press is owned by reaction. There is no such thing as a

so-called independent media. MAPAM Party’s press, led by “Al Hamishmar” cannot be called a friend.

Only the Communist Party’s press can be mobilized to publish about the P.R.R. But it is not too widespread and it is limited to the following: “Kol-Haam” [Voice of the People] – C.C.’ daily newspaper, published in Hebrew, in Tel Aviv; “ Al Ittihad” weekly, in Arabic, in Haifa, “Voice of the People” – a weekly newspaper in Romanian, published in Tel Aviv, “Kol-Hapoel” (Voice of the worker) – weekly newspaper of the I.C.P.’s union section, “Kol-Hanovar” (Voice of the Youth) – weekly newspaper.

The Communist Party’s press also writes in fear of the P.R.R.; it writes so they don’t say it’s not writing, but not so as to upset certain circles in Israel. I.C.P.’s press hasn’t taken a position on emigrations from the P.R.R.; it hasn’t debated the national issue so important in

1) See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949.

37

Israel; it hasn’t said a word about how Zionism is regarded in the P.R.R. Moreover, it removed from the material given by us the part about Zionism.

We even gave them articles, but they took out the parts that we really wanted to be published. However, they did publish several articles on August 23, which we haven’t reported on time.

On December 30, 1949, we collected from the articles sent by the M.F.A. and we put together the following material:

- Achievements in the two years 1948, 1949; - About the State Plan for 1949; - About the perspective Plan; - About cultural life; - About the national issue; - About urban public works, etc. Out of all this material, the following were published in “Kol-Haam” – three articles

(which I attached), in the “Vocea Poporului” a page – very weak (which I also attached) and in “Al Ittihad” – one article.

The rest of the press hasn’t published anything, no matter how hard we tried. We must admit that we could give something to “Al Hamishmar”. We give material to “Roumanie Nouvelle” and the other publications, but we just left it.

After giving the films, “Le Journal de Jérusalem” had a critique, and “Hadar” newspaper was even more critical in regard to the I.C.P., which hasn’t said a word about the Romanian films, although the entire management was present.

On December 31, 1949, “Kol-Haam” broke the news that an I.C.P. Delegation – Wilner and Tufic [Tewfik] Tubi – congratulated the Legation.

We organized the films presentation from December 29, 1949 in a hall room with a capacity of approximately 150 people. The room is separated by columns from a terrace, where we organized an exhibition. The guests were visiting the exhibition first and then they would enter the movie hall. Also, after the movie, they would go through the exhibition, so the exhibition enjoyed special attention.

The Exhibition. From photos sent by M.A.F. we made 9 nicely framed pictures, with the

texts in English and Romanian. The pictures were covering the walls of the room. At the entrance was a stand with Romanian books, magazines and newspapers. The visitors took the books. In the back of the room was a panel made of red fabric with the picture of Professor C.I. Parhon and a slogan in English and Romanian. “Long live the second anniversary of the proclamation of the Romanian People’s Republic.”

The four films – Congress of Intellectuals, the Youth Cup, The city never sleeps and 23 August, required too much time so we proceeded as follows: We started with the Congress of Intellectuals, cutting from it (the end) everything that was after voting the bill. Then came the Youth Cup (the end), cutting the beginning (the preparations) and we only played the sports demonstrations. Then we ran The city never sleeps entirely and ended with 23 August. In total the representation lasted 110 minutes.

The explanation of the films (the text) was given by a speaker in English, which was overlapping with the sound and the speech in Romanian. During breaks, as well as the beginning and the end of the films gala we played Romanian music at the gramophone. The films have been watched with great interest and attention, to the end. The presentation was discussed a lot in the cultural and journalistic circles.

The Soviet Minister requested to be given the films so he can run them at the legation for the entire staff. The Romanians also requested them, but in a much larger room.

38

The favourite scenes were with the mass demonstrations on 23 August, and the Youth Cup. As for The City Never Sleeps, very few people and the workers understood it.

Invitations We invited officials – the Diplomatic Corps, the Government, M.A.F. officials, local

authorities, MPs, mass organizations, political parties, from the cultural and artistic life, journalists, friends, Romanian, etc.

Nobody came from the Government. From the M.F.A. came Director Eliasiv [Eliashiv], his deputy, and the head of Protocol and the deputy, on behalf of the Press Department of the M.F.A. and the county prefect on behalf of the local authorities. Moshe Sne1) came on behalf of MAPAM. From the I.C.P. came the C.C., together with the three secretaries, activists, workers.

From the Diplomatic Corps, all the guests of the U.S.S.R. Legation, the Polish and Czechoslovakian consuls, an envoy from the U.S. and English embassies.

Journalists and writers of all genres attended. Out of approximately 230 guests, about 120-130 people were present. This event reflected the relations between us and Israel. If the Foreign Affairs Ministry

Protocol wouldn’t have attended either, one would have said that the Legation is not accredited to the government.

Cocktail. Due to the fact that the legation is lacking a location, as well as to the

impossibility of finding a suitable room to be within the limits of “privacy”, according to the M.A.F. telegram, we didn’t prepare anything for December 30. We rented the furniture for two days. We served sandwiches and beverages.

Friends congratulated us, no one from the government. In conclusion Our first event can be considered a success. Well-chosen films. Interest was shown.

Exhibit well and beautifully presented. The version would have been better if in another language besides Romanian. Hostility from the government. Hostility from MAPAI2). Abstention from MAPAM. Friendship from the U.S.S.R. Legation and friend consulates. Friendship from the I.C.P. The Romanians are particularly asking about the P.R.R. We were told that we should have given an introduction speech and that we should have served a snack.

The press was not mobilized enough.


1) Moshe Sneh (Sne) (1909-1972), Israeli politician. Leader of the Jewish Party from Poland, member of the General Council of the World Zionist Organization (1931-1939), leader of Haganah (1940-1946), of the anti-British resistance movement (1947), founder and leader of MAPAM, member of C.C., of P.B. (1950-1952); head of the socialist orientation group of MAPAM which, in 1954 joined forces with the I.C.P.; member of P.B. (1954-1962), further president of I.C.P. 2) MAPAI (Mifleget Poa’alei Eretz Yisrael – Israeli Labour Party), social – democrat party, founded in 1930 by merger of Ahdut Haavoda party (1919) and Hapoel ha Tza’ir (The Young Worker, 1905). Fighting for a “constructive socialism”, it became, especially after 1944, a dominant political force of the Israeli society, being part of the government since the establishment of the State of Israel (1948) and winning the elections for the first Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) on Jan. 25, 1949. Afterwards it was represented in all the Parliament’s terms until 1968. In 1968 it merged with Ahdut Haavoda Party – Poa’alei Zion (1944) and with RAFI Party (1965) to form the Israel Labour Party (Mifleget Haavoda Ha-Yisraelit).

39

20


THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI PRESS ON THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION

No. 42 January 11, 1950, Tel Aviv, 22.00 h “Hatofe” [the Guard] the newspaper of Mizrahi Joshizawa1) from the government

coalition, has been publishing for two days articles about emigration. It attacks the U.S.S.R., the P.R.R. and Hungary, saying: “What has escaped the furnaces is destroyed by assimilation. Emigration from Eastern Europe is a matter of life for us and should always be on the agenda. If Israel will not be able to obtain emigration, we are facing a national catastrophe”. Other newspapers rerun it.

The Jewish Press is running articles from a U.S. magazine saying that comrade Ana Pauker is in disagreement with the Information Office in regard to the emigration issue.

It seems she is in favour of emigration and Moscow againsts2). AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f. 11.

21

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G

THE ECHO AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF RECALLING THE ROMANIAN DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE FROM ISRAEL

No. 69 January 18, 1950, Tel Aviv, 22.45 h Comrade Minister Cioroiu and his family embarked on the ship «Transilvania» Tuesday

evening. 1. Strong response in today’s newspapers, emphasizing that the departure caused

surprise because Israel has decided to appoint a new minister in the P.R.R., but they haven’t found the right person yet. Without announcing the departure, “Davar” the government newspaper1), writes: “There is no intention of lowering the level of the Israel’s Legation to P.R.R. or to stand back from any effort to improve the relations between both countries”. 8 newspapers and “Reuter” tried to obtain information through the legation. I refused to give any information.

2. “Al-Hamishmar” (MAPAM) is requesting immediately [a] new minister in Bucharest, thus ensuring the Ayiia2) in Romania. “Haaretz”3) accuses the Israeli government for the recall 1) The Mizrahi Joshizawa Party, party created after 1948 from a former Zionist movement; it became partners with MAPAI, together with which it joined in 1949 the governmental coalition which held a majority of seats in the Knesset. In 1956 it merged with Ha Po’elha Mizrahi, forming the National Religious Party; the latter will continue to be part of most of the governmental coalitions. 2) See the Robert Levy’ study already quoted (in note 1/ doc. no. 11), and his conclusion from pp. 220 (“the remarkable unique attitude for a Stalinist leader”). 1) “Davar” (Fact) was the Histadrut’s official newspaper (the Israeli General Confederation of Labour). It was first published in 1924, being the most important newspaper in the region. 2) Aliyah – “Ascent”, in Hebrew, i.e. emigration to Israel.

40

of the Romanian minister, since it didn’t announce in time the intention to appoint a new Minister, to extend the legation and to send an economic delegation to Bucharest.

“Hadoram” (MAPAI) newspaper replies that the current situation is due to the Romanian government and that “there is no point for the Israeli government to lose time in Bucharest” .

(Ss) Davidovici

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, f. 12.

22


MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC LIFE IN ISRAEL

No. 131 February 5, 1950, Tel Aviv Confidential Comrade Minister, I have the honour to communicate to you the following with regard to diplomatic life in

Israel: New legations always arrive here and other new announce their arrival. Thus, the

minister of Czechoslovakia arrived, [those of] Italy, Belgium. The Dutch representative changes legations. The Poland Legation is expected. Israel is also appointing ministers and ambassadors. Separately, I am sending you the diplomatic list received from the M.F.A. [not published – our. ref.].

The U.S. Embassy sent us a list of its staff and its consulates in Israel. There are over one hundred and eighty people, 24 phone calls. The number of cars is missing, but I am sure is larger than 40.

I will send you a copy of the list. [not published – our. ref.]. A true expeditionary diplomatic body for deepening the U.S.A. infiltration, to be able to be everywhere, to see everything, to know everything, and to seize it.

The Ambassador’s residence is in Ramat Gan and all his staff have comfortable dwelling in the city or nearby.

The Czechoslovakian Legation is settled at the same hotel with us. But they have a house with 32 rooms, which will be completely done in 3 to 4 weeks. And the offices in a few days. The new house will be big enough to accommodate the Legation’s headquarters and housing for the entire mission’s people.

The Minister of Czechoslovakia1) came with family and children. The “Palestine Post” newspaper published a biography of Minister after the editor had a conversation with him.

3) “Haaretz” (Country), newspaper of the Klal-Zionist Party (“the conservative-progressive bourgeoisie”), publication with large circulation and tradition (1913). 1) Edvart Goldstücker (1913-2000), Czechoslovak professor and politician. Secretary of the League for human rights from Prague (1936-1938), teacher in Great Britain (1939-1949), Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czechoslovak government in exile (1943-1944), secretary at the Embassy from Paris (1944-1945), ambassador a.i. in London (1947-1949), Chargé d’affaires in Tel Aviv (1950-1951); involved in the political trials and arrested (1951-1955), after being released he continued his academic career.

41

The entire staff came with the wives. Staff is not large. Among the people there are two people charged with guarding the legation and the minister.

The Minister paid us a visit on January 26, current year. The visit of the Czechoslovak Minister. Time 10-10.55, we spoke French. During the war he was in London. Then he was as a legation counsellor in London. He

knows comrades Macovei2) and Macovescu.3) He’s married, with two children. He is around 40 years old. The conversation varies. House: they bought a house with 32 rooms. They modified it as

follows: ground floor – offices, first floor – rooms, the rest of them for housing. They will all live there including the minister.

It has brought the entire staff from Czechoslovakia: officials and drivers. He is expecting a new car for the head of the legation. “We – he said – we are a family.

So far I only visited Soviets and now I came to you”. The house will be ready in a few weeks and they will move there. He wants us to meet more often. I showed him Eminescu’s books, received here. He liked them and sent us the “Lidove

Novini” newspaper with a page about Eminescu. He has films about Czechoslovakia and he will run them at their place. They now have the legation at Hotel “Yarden”. They live on the same floor with us and

the third floor. The Minister accepted my suggestion to put them all together – for as long as they at the hotel – on the first floor, so that we would have together most of the floor.

He liked ţuica, he finds it strong. He was in Bucharest in 1936, but didn’t stay long. He noticed in Israel an acceptable atmosphere for Czechoslovakia. In what concerns the children, he brought a woman from Czechoslovakia. He doesn’t

hire people from here. He said that Ben Gurion is a person who loses control quickly and then he say

everything that comes into his mind. He sees Israel’s economic situation as being grim. I paid a visit to the [Czechoslovak – our ref.] Minister on January 30. We discussed life here. The Minister told me that their new home might have a 3 bedroom apartment that he

could make available for me, that is if their Central agrees. I am telling you all these, to show you the minister’s kindness, because I don’t think it is

appropriate for someone from the staff of our legation to live at the headquarters of another legation, even if we were friends.

I paid a visit to [Soviet – our ref.] comrade Minister Yershov. He received me friendly.

We spoke about the current issues. When I left he told me go visit him again.

2) Pompiliu Alexandru Macovei (1911-2008), Romanian architect, professor and diplomat. Teacher at the “Ion Mincu” Architecture Institute from Bucharest (1939-1958). In M.F.A. since 1958: diplomatic adviser in Paris (1958-1960), extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Rome (1960-1962), deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (1962-1965). Afterwards, president of the State Committee for Culture and Art (1965-1971), ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary, permanent delegate of the Romania with the UNESCO (1971-1978). 3) George Macovescu (1913-2002), Romanian politician, diplomat and writer. Secretary General of the Ministry of Information (1945-1947), Chargé d’affaires in London (1947-1949), deputy director at the M.F.A. (1949-1952), head of the Romanian Film Department (1955-1959), ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Moscow (1959-1961), deputy (1961-1967), First deputy (1967-1972) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1972-1978).

42

On February 2, I went to the reception held by the Czechoslovakian consul in Tel Aviv,

Gruenwald, in honour of Minister E. Goldstücker. Golda Meyersohn, Sprintzak and many MPs attended, including comrades Mikunis and

Wilner, consuls in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem. The diplomatic body led by comrade Yershov. McDonald attended as well. Many officials from the Foreign Affairs: Eytan, Eliasiv Kohn, Serf, the Secretary

General of the Government. Protocol: chief and assistant chief. Dr. Simon (Chief of Protocol) came to me. Eliasiv as well. I met Eytan at the entrance

and Sprintzak at the table (with this one from a distance). I spoke with Eliasiv for a few minutes. About health... His wife has a heart condition.

He asked: “What’s new?” R.: “What I read in the newspapers”. He said: “Yes, I was at the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Policy,

what can I say? I’m in charge of only half of Europe. I hope that in a few days – in no more than two weeks I will announce the new minister

for Bucharest”. “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs remains in Tel Aviv because all the legations are here.

I think it will take some time ...” Comrade Dianu also attended the reception. We went with our wives. I spoke with Yershov, Mushin, the Polish Consul, Mikunis, and Wilner. When I left comrade minister Goldstücker expressed again his wish to see each other

more often. I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.

(Ss) Paul Davidovici

Chargé d’affaires a.i. at the Legation from Israel


23


MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC MISSION’S ACTIVITY

No. 143 February 11, 1950, Tel Aviv Confidential

Comrade Minister,

Since the departure of comrade minister N. Cioroiu, we are sharing our work as I have communicated to you earlier, with the following changes:

Comrade P. Davidovici undertook comrade Cioroiu’s work. Comrade B. Dianu took undertook management. Our work continues in the same collective spirit and we intend to implement the plan we

set and which I have communicated to you with the courier before last. With the means at our

43

disposal we seek to perform our tasks ahead of us and our work has grown much within the past months. The wives help up.

We haven’t been able to implement the following parts of the plan: 1. The timeline set 2. The program for knowledge and education visits in the country – the latter because of

the bad weather (rain, snow, cold) and the lack of time; I’ve only visited some small towns around Tel Aviv: Holon, Bat Yam, Herzliya, Petach Tikwa using the cars’ lapping.

The time we have left only allows us one night a week for reading the material arrived from the country.

We are also having difficulties and we are implementing very slowly our plan to create connections with different personalities from the cultural and economic life of Israel.

I made two new connections: Professor Eisenstadt, contributor to “Kol-Haam” and

painter Frankel, progressive element also known in the art world. None of them is part of any party.

Relative to our propaganda work: we will be able to run the films in Jaffa no sooner than the second half of March; newspaper “Glasul Poporului” set a permanent column with news from the country and the issue from February 15, current year, will have an article about our state plan. We wish to resume the relations with “Al Hamishmar” the newspaper that published an article about our exhibition in Haifa.

The training for the Eminescu Committee has been delayed because our collaborators who work very slowly. It is, however, possible that, before the couriers leave, we could announce the establishment of the initiative committee. This is the hardest part. We have been suggested the idea to send some gramophone records to Radio Kol-Israel. This radio station plays folk songs from other countries of people’s democracy as well. If you agree, please choose and send us a number of special records.

The greatest difficulty of our work continues to be the lack of offices and homes. We need more and more a typist for Jewish and English, a janitor-messenger, all of them from the country.


(Ss) Paul Davidovici Chargé d’affaires a.i. at the P.R.R.

Legation from Tel Aviv


44

24

THE TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV T O THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON APPOI NTING

THE NEW DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST AND BILATERAL RELA TIONS

No. 183 February 20, 1950, Tel Aviv, 21.45 h For Mrs. Ana Toma: 1. Eytan1) handed me a letter signed by him, addressed to the Legation, announcing that

the Israeli government has decided to appoint Ehud Avriel as plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest2), plenipotentiary minister in Prague and Budapest, asking for your agreement.

2. Yesterday afternoon I went to Eliasiv, demanding that the Israeli government, based on reciprocity, makes available offices and housing for our Legation under the conditions set by the government P.R.R. for the Israeli Legation in Bucharest. Eliasiv, admitting that I was right, said he would do everything he can to fulfil our request. We will receive the response in a few days.

At the meeting today, Eytan raised this issue, saying “I hope we can help you..

(Ss) Davidovici

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f.32.

25

TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMA NIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON SUBMITTING A DIPLOMATIC PROTEST TO THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES

No. 592 February 23, 1950, Tel Aviv, 16.30 h Reply to your telegram no. 176.1) You will go immediately to the Director General of the Ministry, Eytan, and you protest

against the way the Israeli government assures to the P.R.R. Legation the fulfilment of the mission. You will show that the Legation was subject to challenging actions, which have led to breaking into the premises and the disappearance of goods pertaining to the Legation. You

1) Walter Eytan (1910-2001) Israeli politician and diplomat. Head of the Civil Service of the Jewish Agency (1946-1948); Director General within the M.F.A. (1948-1959), he has lead the Israeli delegation at the peace negotiations from Rhodes isle (1949). Ambassador in Paris (1959-1970). 2) Ehud (Yehouda) Avriel (1917-1980), Israeli politician and diplomat. Extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Prague (1948-1949); Budapest (1949-1950) and Bucharest (Jun. 26, 1950-Mar. 22, 1951); afterwards director-general in the Prime Minister’ cabinet (1951-1957), ambassador in Ghana, Liberia and since 1960 Congo (Leopoldville) within 1957-1961; Deputy Director-General within the M.F.A. (1961-1966), and since 1966 ambassador in Rome and in Malta, member of the Knesset (since 1955). See also doc. no. 26. 1) See AMFA, Telegrams matter. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f. 29. (A telegram sent by P. Davidovici on Feb. 17, 1950 announced a break-in at the location of the Romanian Consulate). On Apr. 11, the Israeli M.F.A. expressed its regret for what happened through a Verbal Note, ensuring it will take vigorous measures for “discovering and arresting of offenders”. Ibidem, vol. 4, f. 39.

45

will show that it has come to this due to the lack of support that the Israeli government was supposed to provide to the Legation in fulfilling its mission.

You will conclude your protest urging to be taken action against any challenge and to investigate the case, and punish the guilty party.

Tie this protest to the issue of obtaining premises for the Legation and for the staff. This issue should be the subject of a separate action of your, for which you will have to use all your energy.

In protest that you will present you must emphasize the political aspect of the case for your protest.

As a way of proceeding, we suggest the following: draft beforehand the protest and you will read it in front of Eytan using a decisive tone. Then you leave the same text written on paper, without the Legation’s en-tête, without the stamp and no signature.

Wait for him to say something, but avoid any discussion in which Eytan would try to minimize your protest. Finally, tell him you are expecting his response to your protest as soon as possible. During the meeting, you must have an attitude as cold as possible.

(Ss)Toma

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 8, f.13.

26



No. 211 March 4, 1950, Tel Aviv, 19.00 h For comrade Ana Toma: 1. I am very well informed: During the discussion about the relations with the P.R.R.,

Eliasiv said that Rubin was sent to Bucharest counting on his relations and especially on his personal relationship with comrade Minister Ana Pauker. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is completely disappointed in Rubin and has asked now the agreement for one of the best diplomats, Avriel. Asked to give his opinion on the establishment of the “Roman Israeli League,” he responded affirmatively, but only after receiving the agreement for Avriel.

2. “Palestine Post” is publishing an article filled with defamation and perfidious insinuations about the P.R.R.’s situation and the insidious restrictions to which even diplomats are subjected. The newspaper correspondent writes [that] he obtained them from “a Western diplomat” passing through Vienna. Based on the information I am sure that Rubin wrote or inspired the article.

3. Ehud Avriel: 40 years old, from of MAPAI, born [in] Czechoslovakia, he spent a long time in a MAPAI-MAPAM mixed kibbutz; smart, especially astute, seems to be adversary of the Israeli government’s foreign policy, he takes an anti-imperialist and left-wing democrat [position]. He made a good impression in Czechoslovakia and bad in Hungary. He enjoys [a] very good reputation in MAPAI, MAPAM and left-wing small bourgeoisie.

(Ss) Dianu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f. 43.

46

27

TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMA NIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV REGARDING

THE POSITION OF THE BUCHAREST GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER’S ALLEGATIONS IN RELATIO N TO

THE SITUATION OF THE NATIONALITIES COHABITING IN RO MANIA

No. 1 206 April 7, 1950, Bucharest, 14.20 h Strictly for your information: The Israeli Chargé d’affaires was called at the Ministry and was communicated our

attitude towards the interview given by Ben Gurion1). After he was shown that it cannot be about “persecution” against the nationalities co-habiting a country like ours, he was told that such interviews without impressing the P.R.R. prove that there is someone who has an interest in turning the Israeli government against the Romanian People’s Republic.

Halevi said that Ben Gurion did not refer to Romania, but in Iraq. But if you are summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be replied, do not accept

Halevi’s thesis, showing that Ben Gurion has said indirectly what the American press is saying directly. On March 13, the newspaper “New York Times” reproduced the report of Jacob Pat, Secretary of the Jewish Labour Committee. At the Congress of this committee Pat is thought to have said about Romania (quote from the “New York Times” newspaper): “The life of the Jewish community is on verge of physical and material destruction”.

(Ss) Toma

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 8, f. 24; Ibidem, vol. 4, f. 27.

28

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL 1)

No. 360 April 28, 1950, Tel Aviv, 20.30 h 1. All the newspapers are writing about a communiqué2) of the P.R.R. government

published in Bucharest on the 26th of this month, announcing that starting May 3, it will ease the formalities for immigration to Israel. The newspapers are welcoming the news, but are reserved about results.

Please be so kind as to tell to me what they mean.

1) This is about the interview given by the Israeli Prime Minister to the “New York Times” newspaper on March 20, 1950. Paul Davidovici had informed the Romanian M.F.A., with telegram no. 268 dated March 22, 1950, about the declarations made in the interview: “Israel’s fundamental policy is unlimited immigration. We are especially interested in receiving Jews from the countries where there is danger of persecution or limitation of immigrations, for ex.: Iraq, Romania. We received immediately all these Jews, regardless of the fact that we cannot provide them with dwellings and jobs”. See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol.7, f.57. 1) The content of the telegram was communicated to Alexandru Bârlădeanu, Minister of Foreign Trade. 2) See “Scânteia”, Year XIX, no. 1721, April 26, 1950.

47

2. The economic magazine “Business Digest” shows that Israel pays 70% dollars in the trade agreement with Argentina concluded in mid-April. Also, the trade agreement with Poland, which is now extended for another 6 months stipulates 63% U.S. dollars. As far as I know, the representative of our trade company has discussed the new contract with only 50%.

3. The dollar exchange rate [which] varies all the time, with the constant trend to rise, quotes within 610-630 thousand.

The prices for houses have increased by 15%-20% in the last two months, with an increasing trend.

4. Gordon, the representative of “PRODEXPORT” complained to me that, although he has requested it by wire in mid March and again in mid-April, he hasn’t been sent any money nor has he been reimbursed for the expenses.

(Ss) Davidovici


29

REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ADDRESS ED TO ANA PAUKER, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMA NIA

REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC LIFE IN ISRAEL

No. 372 April 30, 1950, Tel Aviv Confidential Comrade Minister, I have the honour to report the following on the diplomatic life in Israel: I. Attempts to organize the diplomatic and consular body in Tel Aviv 1. On March 14, the current year, McDonald, the U.S. Ambassador, as Dean [of the

diplomatic body], has invited the diplomats accredited to Israel to a meeting. Our Legation has received an invitation on behalf of comrade Cioroiu and, although we

arrived here on March 131), I was not told about invitation [underlined in the text – our ref.], so we didn’t attend.

Comrade Yershov didn’t attend. Comrade Goldstücker, Minister of Czechoslovakia, did attend. He told me the

following: All the other chiefs of offices attended. The U.S. Ambassador proposed: a) to create a club of diplomats in Tel Aviv and b) to put into motion an action for improving the living conditions of Diplomats:

housing, food, telephone, car parking, etc.. In this regard, the chiefs of office must appoint a “small committee” consisting of three people and he even made three proposals: himself, comrade Goldstücker and the Minister of France.

Comrade Goldstücker declined the honour. No other was proposed in his place. Comrade Goldstücker also fought the idea of a club, not corresponding to the needs.

No decisions were taken during the meeting from March 14. After discussions, the meeting was closed and another one has not been called yet.

1) Paul Davidovici had been called on duty in the country at the end of February 1950.

48

The convening from March 14 is the second of its kind. The first was in November, when the U.S. ambassador also convened the chiefs of office with the same purpose. Comrade Cioroiu attended back then and comrade Yershov was also present. McDonald made a mistake then (explained by him later on as involuntary), he proposed to create a “small committee” consisting of the U.S. Ambassador, Comrade Minister Yershov and the Minister of Yugoslavia. Comrade Yershov did not accept and the meeting had no organizational consequences.

2) It has also been tries to organize the consular corps accredited to Israel. In January 1950, Rojinsky, Honorary Consul of Uruguay convened a meeting of the

consuls. He is a very rich man and uses the “honorary consulate” as a means for connections and business. At one point he was also an “honorary consul” of Yugoslavia.

No Soviet consul or one of ours attended the meeting in January. The Polish consul showed up. He is the one who told me that the meeting failed. There were three consuls in total: the host, the Polish and another one.

However, these three formed – all three of them – a committee with the purpose of convening the other consuls.

The committee of the three never reconvened. 3) There is – as you can see – a tendency of the Americans to organize in any way the

diplomatic and consular bodies. The initiatives came from McDonald and Rojinsky probably worked at his disposal. Failure comes from the fact that the diplomatic body of the U.S.S.R. and of the people’s

democracies does not respond and such attempts do not correspond to the intentions of the American initiative.

McDonald’ interest is not, of course, to talk at the Diplomats Club with the Minister of England or France, but with us, with our wives, same with our consuls. And this doesn’t work.

II. Diplomats meeting from April 13, 1950 at MacDonald’s 11 of the 14 chiefs of office in Tel Aviv attended. They discussed the festivities occasioned by Israel’ Independence Day. They spoke in English and French. The Minister of France – Guyon was the interpreter.

McDonald led the meeting. The Agenda: the reception and the banquet in honour of the diplomatic body and going

to Weizmann for congratulations. On the first item on the agenda they fist discussed about clothes, then comrade Yershov

asked why McDonald talks about the HOMs when the agenda says “diplomatic body”. McDonald did not know what to answer and made a phone call to protocol. After receiving the answer they settle for diplomatic body: the chiefs of mission and the councillors and MacDonald said that the ticket was not clear enough, perhaps other members of the missions will be invited.

On the second item, comrade Yershov asked why go to Weismann at Rechowot Rehovot] when his residence is in Tel Aviv. McDonald replied that Weismann has his office in Rechowot. And they moved on.

Then, also on this item, it was read a draft of MacDonald’s speech on behalf of the diplomatic body.

Before reading it, McDonald said that he tried to make it short, because Weismann just recovered after a severe illness and he composed it in such manner that it would not approach any sensitive issues.

The speech consisted of three points: 1. Wishing good health to Weismann.

49

2. The diplomatic body determined that the State of Israel has made progress in the two years.

3. Last year there were four diplomats, this year there’s 14 of them, which shows that Israel has expanded its relations.

Comrade Yershov raised a question of principle. It is necessary for the Dean to speak on behalf of all of them or would it be better if each chief of office would congratulate Weismann on their own behalf? As far as he knows, it’s not an international custom for the dean to speak on behalf of all of them. The question dropped like a bomb.

The result of the discussion: the draft speech was not considered, MacDonald was not given mandate to speak, so if he will make a speech it will be in his name and under his responsibility.

McDonald then thanked everyone and closed the session, which lasted an hour. Although the discussions went right, with jokes and laughter, they could sense the

differences between the two sides. The discussion focused on the issues raised by Yershov, and MacDonald had to back off. None of the marshals supported the idea of a single speaker, none of them refute Yershov’s words. III. The life of the U.S.S.R. diplomats and of the people’s democracies’ in Israel

a) On March 31, current year Yershov organized a reception for the chiefs of mission and consuls of the countries of people’s democracy and their wives. The Czech Minister and Secretary, the Chargé d’affaires of the P.R.R. and the Polish consul and the new vice-consul attended. The meal was reigned by a friendly atmosphere. A rich meal. It’s the first since I arrived in Tel Aviv.

b) I’m maintaining a personal relation and I meet with the Minister of Czechoslovakia. The wives and children were also visited. We were at the reception, for personal reasons, and on [a] trip together.

Due to our life conditions here, it’s hard to make connections. I cannot have them at my place. I invited him for dinner at a restaurant run by known Romanian, in Gibelia, near Tel Aviv.

c) I received a visit from the Polish Deputy Consul General Mark Tee (Consul General Loc was recalled and he was in Poland). Consul Mark Tee works for the consulate for 3 and a half years and he’s been living in Palestine for many years. During the Second World War he was active as progressive element in organizing troops composed of Polish soldiers in fighting against Anders’ army 2). He worked, as I am told a bit anarchic, not obeying the party’s discipline.

He is preparing the arrival of the Legation and remodelling the location for it. Their legation has 14 people, consuls, vice-consuls, attaches and officers. They print a gazette in Hebrew, three times a week and they distribute approximately

300 copies. He knows a lot of people here, from all categories. d) April 19, the visit of the Hungarian Commercial Attaché Lieberman. From him I learned the following: he is a textile worker at his origin. During the war he

fled to the U.S.S.R. and ran a camp of prisoners. He lived in Kiev, in Poland, Belarus, Moscow. In 1947 he returned to Budapest. He is Voss Minister’s brother-in-law. He was sent commercial attaché in Israel. He led the negotiations for the first commercial treaty between Hungary and Israel and for the second; this second treaty, worth four million pounds, has not yet been ratified and hasn’t entered into force. The new commercial treaty has more favourable terms than the first, namely in terms of the percentage of transfer of the Jews in

50

Hungary’ fortunes. Thus, in the first treaty the percentage was 30%, and in the second it is 20%.

His opinion is that they cannot conclude a commercial treaty with Israel without the transfer clause. And if you want to do business...

He believes that collaboration relations should be established between the countries with the peoples’ democracies on the Israeli market. He has spoken in this regard with the Czech and Polish commercial attachés, who immediately wrote to their governments.

He has an apartment at Ramat Gan and his office in the city. He is waiting for a car, for now has rented one for the office hours.

A Hungarian chargé d’affaires will arrive soon. He talked the entire time, using very courteous terms. He does not look like a worker

who outgrew his condition, from any respect. Speaks German well. He also speaks Russian. While we were in Bucharest, Lieberman paid a visit to comrade Dianu and the latter has

returned the visit. e) I have visited comrade Yershov several times, at the legation, discussing various

issues with him. f) On April 15, I met comrade Yershov in Haifa, onboard of ship «Transilvania», where

he had come to lead Archimandrite Ilya. We stayed on the ship until 2 a.m. I offered Comrade Yershov and his comrades a snack on the ship.

g) On April 16, when comrade Yershova left, we met again at Haifa. Almost the entire staff of the Soviet Legation sent off comrade Yershova. We stayed together on the ship for about 6 hours, in a warm atmosphere of comradely friendship, as we very rarely find in Israel and only in these circles.

Comrade Yershov offered an evening snack for everybody. h) At the reception held in his honour by the “Israeli-Czechoslovak friendship league”

Minister Goldstücker delivered a speech, debating with Ben Gurion, who declared that “the weapons from Czechoslovakia during the war, were bought with dollars gathered by Morgenthau”3). The full speech was published in “Kol-Haam” newspaper.

i) Comrade Goldstücker had invited Avriel to dinner at his place twice before. He told me that they discussed various theoretical issues and that Avriel is a Marxist “MAPAI” confused guy. But being a smart man, he always talks in a way that makes his interlocutor enjoy the discussion.

IV. Movement of the diplomatic body in Israel a) All the media was busy with Avriel’s appointment as Minister of Israel in the P.R.R.

He returned to Israel at the beginning of April, coming through the West. He stopped in Paris. Here they are reporting that he will go to Bucharest at the end of April.

b) For Avriel’s former position in Prague and Budapest was proposed Dr. Eliasiv, the current director of the “Eastern Europe” Section, M.F.A. Budapest has already sent the agreement. Czechoslovakia’ agreement was received sometimes around April 15.

c) There are rumours that [Arieh] Levavi4), the current advisor to Moscow, will be appointed for the position of director, in Eliasiv’s place.

d) The Minister of Israel in London died suddenly in the city of residence. This is what they say about his death: “He was found dead in a hotel in London. He was a widower and went there in the company of a woman.”

3) Henry Morgenthau Jr. (1891-1967), Minister of Finance of the U.S.A. (1934-1945). Close collaborator of F.D. Roosevelt and one of the initiators of the New Deal program. 4) Arieh Levavi (Leibmann) (1912-2009), Israeli diplomat. Legation First secretary in Moscow (1948-1950), director of the Eastern Europe Direction (1950-1952), afterwards Director General and deputy Secretary General of the M.F.A.

51

In his place in London, is said to have been proposed W. Eytan, Director General within M.F.A., or Israel’s ambassador in Washington.

e) They are waiting for new recognitions of the state of [Israel] and for new ministers to be sent from Sweden, Norway, Denmark.

f) De facto recognition of Iran was welcomed here a great success. As an insight into the Arab world. A special representative of Iran arrived in Israel. He was legation counsellor in Moscow. It is a native of North Azerbaijan, where he worked for a while as a prosecutor after the war.

g) The diplomatic connection with Turkey is just exploited “in the Muslim world.” The Turks have here a “chargé” [d’affaires – our ref.], although the person has the rank of Plenipotentiary minister.

h) The Minister of Belgium arrived. He was received as usual. i) De jure recognition of Israel by England [Great Britain – our ref.] occurred after the

annexation made by Trans-Jordan, didn’t cause much enthusiasm. j) The Ambassador of Israel in the U.S.A. was in Mexico for a while with the mission -

to write here – of exploring the possibility of achieving diplomatic relations between the two countries.

k) Our relations with the marshalled diplomats are the most accurate. I read in the newspapers that they send invitations for various events to which we are not invited...

With the Yugoslavs we even avoid greeting them when we meet them (at the meeting from April 13).



AMFA, founds Israel. Problem/1950, unpaged.

30

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ASSOCIATION OF JEWS FROM ROMANI A

No. 463 June [9?], 1950, Tel Aviv A huge scandal occurred at the H.O.R.1) opening session. Mizrachi presided; he praised

the P.R.R. for emigration, the public applauded. When he requested the release “of the Zion’s detainees” someone from the audience shouted: “No Zionist is arrested, they come to Israel every week.” Hooligans started a fight. There was a huge fight, and part of the public ran away. Sharett was at the rostrum. He shouted: “Long live P.R.R.”, the police came and debates continued. (According to “Kol-Haam” and eyewitnesses).

1) H.O.R. – Hitachdut Olei Romania = the Union of Romanian Jews, nongovernmental organization, having as president the lawyer Mizrachi, native from Bucharest, former head of the Zionist Organization of Romania. The fall of 1949 it had more than 2500 members, its head office being in Tel Aviv. (According to the official data the population coming from Romania was of approximately 50,000 people, grouped in several cities: Haifa, Jaffa, Ramleh, Lud, in some kibbutzim, villages and camps. Most of those arrived during the war, within 1940-1942, were already situated, being represented in the Knesset by Idov Cohen, 1909-1998).

52

For your information, Levavi, director of the M.F.A., communicated to me via telephone that he had received a telegram from [Zvi] Loker from Bucharest that he wasn’t accepted as Chargé d’affaires to Bucharest.

(Ss) Davidovici


31

REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING

THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWS FROM ROMANIA

No. 684 September 9, 1950, Tel Aviv Confidential I have the honour to report the following on Jewish emigration and the situation of the

Jews arrived recently from the P.R.R. The current situation in Israel is characterized by a severe deepening of the economic

crisis, leading government Ben Gurion to complete subordination to the American war policy. Israel’s attitude in the matter of Korea, the attitude towards the Jews in America, the desperate requests for economic aid show it. The lack of food, of clothing, the price increases make much harder the life of Israeli citizens and increase the people’s discontent.

Exploiting the situation created by the policy of Ben Gurion and of his coalition, the right-wing parties (Klal Zionists and Herut) started a disturbance demanding the resignation of the government, aiming at creating a new coalition led by them for assuming the power. The promise to change the economic policy, to limit Histadrut’s1) economic power. Their first action was during the rationing of textiles and footwear, when they mobilized the merchants against the government. The turmoil and organize the petty bourgeoisie.

In the government coalition, Mizrachi, from the religious bloc, requires the change of the government’s economic policy by strengthening the private initiative, free trade with gold. They’re also requesting the dismissal of the Minister of Rationalization.

The action of the left-wing parties is not as energetic and with a precise objective as of those of the right-wing. MAPAM has been always hesitant. It works in some situations, but up to a point, together with the I.C.P.*), they attack the government in relation to its economic policy, the matter of Korea, its attitude towards the W.F.T.U.**) , but they suggested a common front with the MAPAI Party.

I.C.P. is trying to convince the people and leads the working class in the claims struggles. Their attempts to involve the MAPAM in a war against the government and for the settlement of Israel are facing the resistance of this party through its strong right-wing leadership. In the fight against the Communist Party there is a unique approach to all Zionists, from Herut to MAPAM.

1) Histadrut –– General Federation of Labour in Israel, dominated by the MAPAI’s representatives. Founded in 1920 by the pioneers of the Zionist movement, it has promoted a modern labour legislation, being in favour of work in kibbutz. In 1960, 70% of the workers were represented in the Histadrut. *) I.C.P.- the Israeli Communist Party. The Palestinian Communist Party (founded in 1919) changed its name into the I.C.P. in May 1948. **) W.F.T.U. – World Federation of Trade Unions.

53

The municipal elections approach (in November) and, considering the current circumstances, the opposition has a good chance of winning.

The workers are in constant turmoil and they demand the increase of their wages through strikes (the last one of the diamond polishers), while the government prepares new tasks for the workers. The Israelis suffer from hunger. Discontent grows in the emigrant and transfer camps and the incidents, the clashes with the camp management are becoming more frequent.

The lack of jobs is continuously growing, unemployment has increased after rationalization. Winter is arriving with new difficulties.

In this situation, Ben Gurion addressed the Americans, requesting a new loan for $35 million from the Export Bank and especially from the wealthy Jews from America, Truman’s2), people, to save him by bringing a billion dollars within three years.

Ben Gurion made a desperate appeal to the American Jews, and it wasn’t the first, he made another one in June, when requested 252 million from the collected fund and he failed. Spectacularly organized, the Conference from Jerusalem, with the 45 wealthy Jewish guests, Zionists and non-Zionists, cannot lead to practical results. In my opinion, the Americans do not want these actions to succeed. Out of the 3 points of the resolution through which they must, by implementing them, gather one billion in America, 2 of them (the collect fund and the capital investments) have already been tested and failed. The third one, the loan, has little chance of success if the same people, who no longer contribute to the collect fund, are asked to contribute both to the collect fund and the loan. What became clear at the conference is the new task imposed by the government to the people of Israel to gather the third billion domestically. Therefore, wage decreases, new taxes, new austerities.

Ben Gurion’s path is the one shown by Morgenthau in January and by Blaustein3) in august 1950, a complete “Truman-isation”, which can be reached either through loans from the Export Bank or by applying the open aid granted under Article 4.

In this difficult economic situation, every new emigrant arriving adds to the problem. Over 100,000 people from the camps lack accommodation, have no jobs, no perspective. But their number is constantly growing.

The emigrants coming from the P.R.R. are therefore a difficult task for the government lead by Ben Gurion. Unable to obtain a “regulation” (even before Avriel’s departure the newspapers were announcing that regulating immigration from the P.R.R. is the first task – telegram no. 281 from March 24, 1950)4), they do everything they can now and they’re attacking us this way in order to stop emigration. The issue from August 31 of “Al-Hamishmar” newspaper, shows the bourgeoisie’s and MAPAI’s attitude, which attacks the P.R.R. now when the immigrants are coming, accusing them of wanting to affect emigration. If the Romanian government would put a stop to emigration from the P.R.R. now, it would be a great relief for the government lead by Ben Gurion and of course a new opportunity for attacks on our country, both by Zionists, as well as by the government. The government would be relieved of the burden of new mouths to feed and they would give them reasons to attack the peace bloc, new reasons to get close to America, to the Israeli people. They always announce limiting emigration, stopping emigration from the P.R.R. I noticed that and I point it out as one of the explanations for the massive attacks against us.

2) Harry Truman (1884-1972), American politician. Member of the Democratic Party, Vice-President (1945) and afterwards President of the U.S.A. until 1952. 3) Jacob (Yaakov) Blaustein was the president of the Jewish Committee in the U.S.A. he promised, during his visit in Israel (August), to support the loan drafted by the Ben Gurion government destined for the country’s economic recovery. Acc. to telegram no. 666 dated Aug. 29, 1950 signed by P. Davidovici, in AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f. 144.

54

On the other hand, anything that could prevent the masses from knowing the actual situation in Israel is welcomed. Losing an important reason for attacking us, the small number of people that were leaving us, they are using anything as object of their attack. Thus: the amount of kilograms permitted to be taken out of the country, the behaviour of customs officers in Constanţa, the jam on «Transilvania», everything is fine for attacking the P.R.R.

But the main attacks against us focused on two issues: the propaganda in the country against the departures and the arrest of some Zionist leaders. I informed you about the attacks against us via telegraph.

Now they are moving to more powerful ways of attack against us, by mobilizing the former “paratroopers” who were in Romania during the war and the organizations of the Jews arrived from our country, especially the “Union of Romanian Jews”, presided by Mizrachi. (I enclose the report prepared by comrade Dianu on the discussion between him and Mizrachi)5).

I was not able to find out more about the report I am preparing in addition to what I communicated to you in telegrams no. 673 and 678.6) I asked our friends here, but they don’t know anything.

I believe the attack against the P.R.R. is also caused by the continuous deepening of their relation with the Americans. By pushing the attack on the U.S.S.R. and the people’s democracy countries, the Americans aim at isolating Israel as much as possible from these countries, so that, remaining isolated, it would become an easier prey for their war plots.

The Zionists are paying special attention to the newcomers from the P.R.R. MAPAM has created a Romanian division, within the party, under the leadership of

Aron Cohn, born in Romania, Misha Levin’s friend. They printed a gazette in Romanian in Haifa. One of the employees of this gazette is Leon Heimsohn, arrived for a few months, who was at some point the delegate of the Zionist party MISHMAR in J.D.C.’s committee from Bucharest. I am enclosing a copy of this gazette.

MAPAI also printed a weekly newspaper, “Viaţa noastră”, which aims at becoming “the guide of the Jewish emigration from Romania” and contains in its columns the turmoil of the “Union of Romanian Jews”.

During the MAPAI Party conference from August 1950 they received a Romanian delegation. MAPAI will also create, as I heard, a “Romanian division”.

The “Union of Romanian Jews” (Hitachdut Ole Romania) is very active. They create local sections in the emigrant camps. They hold conferences there. They organize Hebrew classes. This organization is supported by the government and by two government parties, MAPAI and the Progressives, and they are trying to draw the Romanian with its help. Many of the Union’s members are also members of Herut.

The government has created a special hour on the radio, in Romanian, on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, and “Renaşterea” is requesting for the show to be daily.

“Renaşterea” newspaper and its editors work on the radio, as lecturers in camps, as writers of articles that “enlighten” the Romanian who came here and which contain attacks against us.

I.C.P. is also beginning to be interested in Romanians. They will create a commission to deal especially with this matter.

Among the measures that the I.C.P. has in mind is turning “Glasul Poporului” newspaper into a daily [sic!] newspaper. They started to distribute the newspaper to emigrants when the ship arrived, on Sunday.

While MAPAM and MAPAI have begun to create party sections in the camps, for I.C.P. it is difficult to reach there, due to the opposition of the MAPAI administration in the camps. 5) Shall not be published – our ref.. 6) AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1950, vol. 7, f. 148-149. Shall not be published – our ref.

55

The masses arriving everyday are generally hostile towards us. The Zionists who arrive join the respective parties, based on the Zionist policy practiced

by the P.R.R. A few young men joined the U.I.C.Y. Some of them are sent to kibbutzim***) . We

haven’t heard of any adults going to kibbutz. There are also people who are starting to open their eyes. People, who only arrived a

few weeks ago, in August, started to come to the Legation and handed us memos demanding repatriation.

I sent you 15 of these memos with the last courier. I am sending you another 25 memos of those arrived here in 1950.

If we will begin to repatriate some of them, I am positive that we will be buried in applications, both from the older ones, as well as from the newcomers.

I had the opportunity a few times to observe that there are newcomers that are not hostile towards us. Thus, a few days ago I met a stranger on the street. He approached and greeted me in Romanian and I remembered that we were both at a conference in Arad. He said he wanted to talk to me, that things were bad for him. I told him when I can receive him at the Legation, on the office days.

I was once in a store and I addressed a young salesman in German. He replied in Romanian. He told me he was an U.I.C.Y. in the P.R.R. that he came here

because of his parents. He is unhappy and he misses his life back home. I gave him, at his request, Romanian magazines and newspapers.

I cannot tell you how many they are. But if they are a few, their number is increasing. In order to be able to get closer to the Romanian who would want to keep in touch with

us, and not let them be recruited by the Zionists, I think we could use the Israel-P.R.R. friendship association. With all the hostile attitude from the government and the Zionists, I think now is the time to lay the foundation of this association. We will be able to find a few personalities and many activists, common people. I’m saying we should create not a formal committee, like the Polish or Czech one, but an active organization.

And we should also begin to organize the “Romanian colony” with people who would be recognized the capacity of Romanian citizens.

Please send me instructions for these affairs. I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.


P.S. I am enclosing Sharett’s speech and B. Gurion and [Zalman Aranne, 1899-1970,

SG MAPAI, 1949-1951] Aronovitz’s 7), closing speeches, and the resolutions of MAPAI Congress, in total 51 pages, as well as various articles and information from the conference with the 45 Americans and Histadrut’s Conference (September 1-8), 22 pages8). AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1950, unpaged.

***) Kibbutz – collective village where each member was contributing with their wealth and workforce and in exchange they received everything necessary for their livelihood (food, clothing, housing etc.). 7)-8) Shall not be published – our.ref.

56

32


CERTAIN POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ROMANIA

No. 721 September 21, 1950, Tel Aviv

1. “Yedioth Ahronoth” [Latest news] and “Herut” are writing that their correspondents

from Jerusalem found out that: the Israeli delegation to the UN will vote for the proposal of the Western Powers to blame Romania for not meeting the armistice conditions and for stealing away the individual rights in that country.

The proposal of the Western Powers proposal refers to Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, but “the Israeli delegation will abstain from voting in regards to Hungary and Bulgaria, but will vote for blaming Romania, due to the anti-Zionist repressions, preventing immigration to Israel and arresting the Zionist leaders.”

Israel “will emphasize especially that freedom was taken away from the Jewish citizens from Romania and the incitement campaign waged by the Romanian authorities against the State of Israel and the Zionist movement.”

“Herut” adds that Avriel has been negotiating for a few weeks “with a deputy [sic!] of Ana Pauker for improving mutual relations between both countries. They are also discussing trade and economic relations, but so far the negotiations [are] not leading to any solid results.”

2. The “Hador” [the Generation]1) issue from September 20, published an article signed by XXX (known as Sharett’s signature) showing that Israel will take action against the veto power “The current situation leaves us with two possibilities: either the dissolution of the U.N. or cancelling the veto” and further “that we are forced to join the direction that aims at redressing the U.N. from the ground”. The article has a clear anti-Soviet attitude.

3. “Radio Israel” announced that the P.R.R. government decided to extend the military service from two to three years.

4. The “Arab Workers’ Congress” was banned. I learned that the Congress was about to announce its connection with the W.F.T.U. and to support it.

5. To be deciphered personally by comrade Ana Toma: “Israel’s Echo”2) newspaper publishes with the headline Daughter of a Haham and the

sister of a professor from Mikveh Israel, “Ana Pauker is the most powerful woman in Romania. She changes accommodation every night for fear of an attack” a long biography of comrade Ana Pauker.

I will send you the newspaper by courier.

(Ss) Davidovici


1) “Hador” was MAPAI’s official body. 2) French newspaper in Tel Aviv.

57

33

NOTE OF PAUL DAVIDOVICI, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, M INISTER OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI PARTIES TOWARDS THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE

No. 751 September 30, 1950, Tel Aviv I have the honour to report the following in response to your address no.4 294,1) on how

immigration is regarded here in general. All the Zionist parties are making the “Kibbutz Galuyot” (bringing all the Jews to Israel)

the foundation of their programs and activities. Thus such an atmosphere was created for this idea, that speaking publicly against it is considered very serious.

The I.C.P., accused of being against emigration, does nothing to tackle the issue, while its press announces in big headlines the arrival of immigrants.

However, ever since last year, when the lack of funds posed great difficulties for the Jewish Agency, there were people who, at the meetings of the global fora of this institution, spoke for temporarily stopping, restricting or regulating immigration.

Nahum Goldman2) himself, Chairman of the Jewish Agency in America and its top leader, proposed at a meeting in South Africa to limit immigration, but he “dropped the proposal after being explained about the danger that there are places where Jews must be saved from the danger of decimation or degeneration” (“ Davar”).

At the conference in Jerusalem with the 45, several persons – Zionists from England, Levit from “Joint” – raised the issue. The result was that their proposal was rejected.

As they tell me, there are people in all the parties who believe that immigration should be stopped or restricted, but no action is sustained in this regard.

I will keep you informed about this matter. 2. I am enclosing, in original and translated, Israel’s budget, which, although passed in

July, wasn’t included in the brochure until early September and the translation was done on the 26th of this month.

I am also sending you the investment budget, as it was published in the press. I haven’t had time to prepare the report you requested. I received your letter on

September 24. I will send it with the other courier. Please accept the assurance of my utmost respect.

(Ss) Davidovici AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1950, unpaged.

1) AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1950, unpaged. The problem related to immigration to Israel was presented by Paul Davidovici since the beginning of 1950, in the Confidential Report no. 147 dated February 8, where he mentioned that “Bringing Jews in Palestine is the ancient Zionist song, based on religious education of the Jewish middle class, on Jerusalem’s nostalgia. Bringing the Jews in Palestine requires large funds and here the dream becomes a true. All the countries and especially America have fund raisings. They bring fairly large amounts of money in Israel; according to the official figures, they brought 115,000,000 pounds from America in ‘49 instead of 150 million as it was expected. See Ibidem. 2) Nahum Goldman (1895-1982), Israeli politician. Founder (1936) and afterwards president of the World Jewish Congress (1953-1977); Vice-President of the Zionist Organization (1948-1952).

58

34

TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMA NIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FORWARDING

A VERBAL RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI M.F.A. IN REGARD T O CERTAIN ROMANIAN DEBTS

No. 800 February 15, 1951, Tel Aviv, 10.40 h Please send to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel the following Verbal Note: “The

Legation of the People’s Republic of Romania is greeting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and making reference to the Verbal Note from January 23, 1951, has the honour of communicating the following:

The Government of the People’s Republic of Romania considers that the restitution of the Romanian funds mentioned in the Legation’s Verbal Note no. 879, dated October 28, 1950 cannot be conditioned by discussing issues that the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs is calling «claims currently suspended between Israel and the People’s Republic of Romania».

We mention that the restrictive measures on the funds belonging to the Bank of the People’s Republic of Romania and to other Romanian institutions is unjustified, the more so as the banks from Israel have acknowledged these claims as debts.

Consequently, by the order of its government, the Legation of the People’s Republic of Romania is asking the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to immediately take the necessary action to allow the free use of the funds mentioned in the Verbal Note no. 879 dated November 28, 1950” .

(Ss) Toma


35

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS

No. 649 July 14, 1951, Tel Aviv, 16.00 h 1. Apologizing to the occurrence of an unforeseen, urgent matter, Sharett postponed the

audience for Sunday, at 12 o’clock. 2. On the evening of July 12, the movie “Răsună Valea” was well received in Tel Aviv.

Approximately 250 people: friend diplomats, politicians, journalists, kibbutzim. Well appreciated from an artistic point of view. Well reviewed in “Kol-Haam” and “Davar”. The directors of the movie theatres from Jaffa were present. Marketing [shows] perspective in Haifa and Jaffa.

3. “Viaţa noastră” newspaper (MAPAI, in Romanian) published Sharett’s speech given at H.O.R. which, after the salute and rejoice for the emigration from the P.R.R., says, I’m translating: “This Aliyah is an integrant part of the great revolution of our generation: gathering our scattered people in the rebuilt homeland. This alliance is for us a source of satisfaction and hope that it will continue until completing the Kibbutz Galuyot, with the arrival of all those who want to come here. But our joy is intertwined with pain and peace of

59

mind is accompanied by concern. A number of our Zionist friends didn’t have the chance to reach their goal [...] they were deprived of their personal freedom [...]. [We] are shocked and completely disappointed by these arrests. We know our friends, they are our flesh and blood.

They share the fight for Zion and its salvation. They contributed together with all of us to the creation of the state. We hope they their innocence will be accepted soon and that we will be able to celebrate with them their freedom and their arrival here. We are hereby expressing the thoughts of the government and of the entire people”. This is the most complete text, the Jewish newspapers published it only partially.

4. Part of the Zionist media announced that Dr. Petru Groza1) and Chervenkov2) fell into disgrace.

(Ss) Davidovici

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1951, vol. 11, f. 42-43.

36


THE VISIT OF DR. FILDERMAN IN ISRAEL

No.816 August 18, 1951, Tel Aviv Confidential Regarding the visit of Dr. Filderman’s1), the lawyer who fled from us, we found out –

from media and from some people the following: Dr. Filderman arrived in Tel Aviv approximately three months ago. About the time

when Rabbi Al. Shafran2) arrived. As far as I could observe, he was seen in the company of Zionist leaders. He was

received by President Weizmann and by Karen Kayemeth Lelsrael (the National Fund) threw him a banquet.

Thus, it was always seen accompanied by Fred Saraga, president of the H.O.R. in Tel Aviv, a former stockbroker from Bucharest, who was his guide in Tel Aviv.

1) Petru Groza (1884-1958), Romanian lawyer and politician. Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Mar. 6, 1945-Jun. 2, 1952); President of the Grand National Assembly (Jun. 2, 1952-Jan. 7, 1958). 2) Vilko Velev Chervenkov (1900-1980), Bulgarian politician, outstanding member of the Communist Party. Member in the National Assembly (since 1945), chairman of the Committee for Science, Art and Culture (1947), Secretary General of the Patriotic Front (1947-1948), Vice President (1949-1950) and afterwards Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1950-1956), minister of Culture (1956-1958). 1) Dr. Wilhelm Filderman (1882-1963), Romanian lawyer and politician of Jewish origin. Graduate of the Faculty of Law from Bucharest (1906), doctor at Sorbonne (1909), founding member of the Union of Native Jews; he participated in the war for national reunification, being decorated with “Military Virtue” and “Romanian Crown” orders; part of the Romanian delegation at the Peace Conference from Paris (1919); Member on the N.L.P. lists (1927-1930). Founding member of the Jewish Agency – SOHNUT (Zurich, 1929). President of the Federation of Jewish Communities of Romania (1921-1941, 1944-1946); in exile, in France since 1948. See A lawyer of his ethnicity. A lawyer for the Romanian national cause. Articles, speeches, memoirs 1921-1948, 2 vol., Bucharest, 2000. 2) Alexandru Safran (Yehouda Alexandre Shafran, 1911-2006), former Chief Rabbi of the Jewish Community in Romania (1940-1947). Chief Rabbi of Geneva (since 1948).

60

Filderman’s concern, the obvious one, would be finding ways to help the people coming from the P.R.R. with funds collected abroad, especially in France, where he lives and where, I am told, he is the representative of the Joint for Europe.

Regarding Filderman’s visit and position, this is what M.Sne tells me. Filderman visited Sne about the time the H.O.R. Congress took place and went to see him accompanied by Fred Saraga. Hearing they were both Romanian, Sne, who had received an invitation from Kohavi3), asked: “You want to convince me to come to the H.O.R. Congress? “

Filderman answered offended: “No! Mr. MP. This is not why I came, I don’t meddle in H.O.R.’affairs, but now that you mentioned it, I am against Kohavi’ disturbances against the P.R.R. First of all, they won’t bring anything good, and secondly I am against stirring the masses. There are plenty other ways to convince the P.R.R. government, if we want it to release the arrestees” .

I found out from another source that Filderman had said to a small group of people: “There are Jews in the P.R.R. leadership and even in the security service” and that it had to do with Agami.

“ I, Filderman, have never spoken against P.R.R. It is true that I flee from there, but God forbid, I would never speak against my former country. I was even called in America, but I refused” [highlighted by us].

Then we spoke about Filderman’s reason for visiting Sne: advice on how to help the Jews arrived from the P.R.R. in Israel. To this the Sne and answered: “With cars etc.” Filderman took accurate notes.

There were always misunderstandings between Filderman and the group from “Renaşterea” – especially Kohavi. The attack in “Renaşterea” against Filderman, which he called “the traveller” and ordered him to come live in Israel, “to build with them” proves that here Filderman took silent – his working method – actions against Kohavi.

Filderman had ties with Mizrachi. He was in Paris and London within May-June. It is possible they met there as well. Both of them are in favour of the “liberation of Zion area”, but through interventions, persuasion.

Filderman went back to Paris. Mizrachi continues here his action against Kohavi and against the decisions H.O.R.’s “Congress from July 10”.


(Ss) Davidovici

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1951, unpaged. 3) Samy I. Stern-Kohavi, Israeli lawyer and journalist, native from Romania, which he left in the early ‘30; founder and one of the managers of the weekly newspaper “Renaşterea noastră”.

61

37


THE EMIGRATION POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 1 129 November 21, 1951, Tel Aviv Confidential This week the press published one of Yitzhak Raphael’s statements, the head of the

Jewish Agency’s emigration department, on emigration in 1952, which means, in actuality, giving up on the “Gathering of Exiles” – Kibbutz Galuyot.

Here is the text of the resolutions, according to “Kol-Haam” issue from November 19, 1951:

1) 80% of emigrants must be chosen from the youth, craftsmen under the age of 35 and families where the provider is younger than 35 years old.

2) The candidates above – besides the craftsmen and the people with means in regard to housing and personal commitments – must commit in writing to work on farms for two years.

3) The candidates above will be approved only after a basic medical examination under the supervision of a physician from the country.

4) Not more than 20% of the emigrants should be older than 35 and the categories detailed above.

5) Approval for the emigrants requested by their relatives in the country will be given the immigration department, after determining the relative’s ability to absorb and accommodate them.

The decision is of utmost importance for the State of Israel, and especially for the World Zionist Organization.

It reveals many concealments of Ben Gurion’s regime and despite all their attempts to minimize with words the action they are forced to take, it cannot hide the truth that proves:

1. Israel’s inescapable economic crisis, under the current regime. 2. The instability of Ben Gurion government, the instability of the world Zionist

movement, [currently] under dissolution. The lies told by the Zionist propaganda. 3. The bluff of the American aid for settling the emigrants and rebuilding Israel. It

shows the truth regarding the Israeli government’s war policy, which seeks to turn Israel into a U.S. military base.

It explains the attacks against the U.S.S.R., the P.R.R. and the peace front countries, attacks orchestrated not because the Jews cannot emigrate, but attacks against socialism, supporting the American imperialism.

The decision is made by the Jewish Agency, the body responsible for the World Zionist Congress, held in Jerusalem in august 1951, in collaboration with the Israeli government to complete the gathering of the exiles.

The decision is not made in haste. It was made after long discussions held in all bodies of the world Zionism and from Israel, where the government’s orders are followed, after long consultations with the funding fora: the “Joint” collect fund and of course the U.S. government.

Such a decision is made for the first time since the establishment of Israel against the loud propaganda for Kibbutz Galuyot (“Gathering of Exiles”) of the Zionists and of Ben Gurion government.

It is made by the Jewish Agency – the head of the Zionist Organization – whose purpose is precisely achieving this “goal” of the Zionist bourgeoisie, which has envisaging a great

62

private market, cheap labour and participation in world domination under the wing of the U.S. imperialism.

1. The measure represents recognition of the economic crisis that cannot be overcome for as long as they will follow the war policy of the bourgeoisie and ecclesiasts from Israel, led by social-democracy, those responsible for this situation.

Misery – which has not reached its peak yet – of the working masses from Israel is unbelievable. Hunger is a permanent phenomenon. The situation is so bad that they expect the difficulties to worsen. I’m sending you with this courier a report which shows, in a small part, aspects from the demonstration against starvation. People are hungry. Here’s an example showing that not only the workers and the people with the lowest salaries are hungry, but also and freelancers, people who earn quite well even in relation to the expensiveness of the black stock (you can no longer find anything at face value). Our English teacher, who works hard and earns well, when she came once - to resume the lessons after spending 3 months abroad – I served chocolate and oranges. She rushed to grab the chocolate – she ate about 100 grams without embarrassment, the entire time saying “God, I’m so hungry”, and then she asked a few packages for her sister who earns as well as her. She didn’t even look at the oranges that were on the table, explaining “they may be good, but I’m hungry”.

The Maabarots* and Bet-Olim** are starvation camps, with desperate, tortured people without prospects, people who lose their hope more and more every day.

The dwellings for the emigrants are built of wood and fabric. It is explained, among other things, that the Agency has no space for building workshops where they are making wooden houses. Production would be 24 houses in 24 hours – according to their data. For ten thousand families who have no home, who live in tents and for those who keep arriving on the brink of winter, rainfall.

There are always disturbances in the Maabarots. There are no jobs and the richness of the country – what’s left of them – is kept by the concessionaires.

2. a) What will happen to political base of the Israeli government after the decision was made? Ben Gurion shouted “Kibbutz Galuyot” nonstop, without conditions, offering as arguments:

- Saving the endangered Jewish collectives; - Israel’s security in order to survive the constant “Arab threat” and other dangers; - Restoring the state. Kibbutz Galuyot was something holy. Nobody dared to touch this sacred principle.

When, on the eve of municipal elections in 1950, Bernstein1), president of Klal Zionists 2), suggested a possible interruption of emigration – the entire Mapaist attack, during those

* Refugee absorption camps. Maabarot = village of tents. ** Camp where the immigrants were to receive full care, including the possibility to learn and receive medical assistance. 1) Peretz Bernstein (1890-1971), businessman, Israeli journalist and politician. Member of the Zionist Organization since youth, editor-in-chief of “Haboker” newspaper (Tel Aviv) within 1937-1945 and 1958-1964; member of the Jewish Agency – Sohnut, head of the trade and industry department (1946-1948), Minister of Commerce, Industry and Communications (1948-1949) and of Commerce and Industry (1952-1955). Chairman of Klal-Zionists (1944-1947, 1949-1961), member of the Knesset (1949-1964). 2) Zionist Klal Party (or General Zionist), representative of the big bourgeoisie, of the citrus plantation owners and traders, he had a strong influence in the financial-economic world. Its liberal faction, that the President of the country was part of, got separated in 1948 and founded the Progressive Party, willing to participate in the government coalition led by MAPAI. In th4 official newspaper “Haaretz” (Country) it favoured private economic development and close relations with the American financial groups, and externally, it was in favour of a policy for consolidating national independence and sovereignty, without territorial concessions, without military commitments. The conservative fraction, which had as official newspaper “Haboker” (Morning), maintained the party – which became between 1951 and 1955 the second political force in Israel – in a constant position to MAPAI, externally requesting to for the country to join the military blocs opposed to the U.S.S.R.

63

elections, against the Klal Zionists was on this subject and Bernstein rectified, explained, to escape this charge.

The bourgeoisie, noting that at the moment there was enough “spare manpower,” in the country, tried to raise the issue, but failed.

Now Ben Gurion himself is stopping to emigration. This means he is giving up on rescuing the Jews “in danger” as well as on restoring and

especially security – his entire program. Indeed, all he was left with was the program imposed by the Americans: preparing for war against the U.S.S.R. and preventing the national liberation fight of the Arab peoples and Iran.

Ben Gurion government passed a new law last year: the Repatriation Act according to which any Jew can immigrate to Israel. The law passed by the parliament unanimously will be without object according to the Agency’s decision.

Who is stronger in Israel: the Parliament unanimity or the Jewish Agency, Zionist body. Who decides the fate of the country? Until today the Parliament didn’t have the matter on the agenda. The decision was prepared by Zionists and the members of the government, parliament and Agency – and by non-Zionist bourgeois Jews from America.

At a meeting of MAPAI (where the communist journalists were not allowed to enter), held last week, one of the leaders of MAPAI, MP Livni, demanded be allowed to emigrate only the people who want and can work.

Another MAPAI chief – [Meir] Argov (former Grabovsky) [1905-1963], recently elected Secretary General of the party – declared during the formation of the new government that only by increasing production and by not increasing the workers’ wages and not paying overtime could stop the crisis.

The truth is that MAPAI leadership, as well as the bourgeoisie are afraid of the emigrants from the people’s democracy countries.

The explanation that the Agency’s decision applies only to the “free countries”, namely the Western countries, where the people are understandable and they can organize a selection for countries where “their life is in danger” they may come as always, is a lie.

Here are the explanations given by the MAPAI newspaper “Viaţa noastră” in Romanian in issue no. 112 from November 21, 1951, under the headline in three columns No restriction on emigration from the P.R.R.: “For the Aliyah in P.R.R., Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia not restriction will apply, but the Israeli legations will receive instructions to take measures for reducing the number of elders and those who cannot work with each shipment. The measures shall not apply in the countries where the Jews’ life is in danger, or where the Aliyah is limited in time” .

Nobody is pointing to countries where “the Jews’ life is in danger”. It’s not difficult to hard to understand the insinuation: it’s the peace front countries.

“Kol-Haam” accuses directly the Ben Gurion of measures taken, writing: “Ben Gurion renews the «White Paper»3), which refers to the policy of the English mandate on immigration (limited selection – with certificates).

3) Reference to the three “White Papers” of the British government regarding the Jews’ establishment in Palestine: the first one from 1922 (Churchill) had disavowed any intention to create a new Jewish state in Palestine, suggesting the organization in the future of a bi-national Palestinian state; the document is accepted, but limited, the Jewish immigrations to Palestine, being rejected by the Arab leadership. The second act from 1930 (Passfied) had reaffirmed the cultural nature of “the Jewish national core” same as in 1922, setting, however, new restrictions for immigrations, which dissatisfied the Jewish leadership. The last document was dated May 17, 1939 and it had announced a new policy of London in Palestine, showing that the population here needed to prepare for self-government, prologue of a prologue of an Arab-Jewish common independent state, that could be created in 10 years. Since it restricted the Jews’ right to purchase land, the paper was denounced again by the chiefs of the Jewish emancipation movement.

64

B. But this is where is seen the true nature of the Zionist organization – it became a collecting agent for the American imperialism.

From the discussion between Israel and the World Zionist State resulted that: The World Zionist Organization has two major tasks: 1. The creation of Israel, completed and 2. Gathering of Exiles – in progress. Therefore, it must not only exist, but without jeopardizing the very existence of Israel,

which also counts on the Kibbutz Galuyot (Ben Gurion’s program). So the Agency, central body elected by the World Zionist Organization’s Congress, contradicts it, stopping the Kibbutz Galuyot from completion.

Can it be presumed that the decision was made without the World Zionist Organization knowing about it? Not possible – because they work hand in hand, the Agency depending on the Organization.

By setting the tasks of the World Zionist Organization – whose most leaders are American Zionists – their intention was not to complete Kibbutz Galuyot, but to maintain a global body consisting mainly in Americans, who would interfere in the affairs of Israel.

Did this have a negative impact on the American influence in? Not For the government and the Zionists – the masses have not yet been informed.

When was the decision made? According to Israel’s “Western” policy, granting subsidies, the arrival of American official commissions in Israel. We could say after the American Jews have accomplished their tasks set by Truman.

The World Zionist Organization, as well as the Zionist movement, is badly hurt. There will be, of course, discussions in the media, congresses will gather, they will return in part, they will change people. But cancer has appeared.

Some newspapers here are asking the government to hand over the emigration to the Agency. We find it – if the newspapers would work in good faith – stupid, because the Israeli Government, at least current one, with its policy, cannot bring to the Americans a man without money, namely is without the Agency and the World Zionist Organization.

The decision is a strong coup for the Zionist movement, if we compare this measure, which really means giving up on the Kibbutz Galuyot, the second largest task of the World Zionist movement – after “completing” the first, the creation of Israel, with the increasingly radical fight of the working class, with the growing number of people from different categories participating in strikes and demonstrations (teachers, sailors, bakers, communications, metallurgists, etc..) the increasing participation of women in the fight for peace – for supplying the workers demanding to increase production, not cease it not in favour of U.S. exports and liberation from its tutelage – we have the confirmation our legation’s point of view, I believe, as shown in detail in our report from August 1951, during the elections for the second Knesset:

1. Dissolution of Zionism; 2. Increasing class awareness among the people who work in Israel. The two worlds facing each other are mentioned more and more. The Zionist press made a lot of noise, the Israeli diplomats were nervous in Washington

and the U.N. and New York, most of the government body went to America, the Israeli government was nervous in relation to the “U.S. subsidies”, the “Independence Loan” launched by the Jews in America.

Nobody believed them. The truth is out now. The Subsidy, the Independence Loan had a clear objective: bringing, accommodating and employing 600,000 Jews in Israel, for three years.

They gave up on the Jews, the conclusion is pretty clear: the loan failed. The Americans don’t loan money to bring Jews to Israel. The immigrants from the Eastern European

65

countries are dangerous – as proved by the movements of the people from the Maabarots, Beth-Olim and generally by the strengthening of the progressive movement, strikes, supporting the fight for the liberation of the Iranian and Egyptian peoples. It was proven that even the Yemenis and Moroccans, says the government, can raise 200,000 soldiers, they did great manoeuvres, the reserves are ready. These men armed, led by the P.C.I. and left-wing MAPAM aren’t they a danger to the Americans, to the Israeli bourgeoisie and social democracy? Of course they are. Australians, South Africans, New Zealanders will come to fight here as well. There are also British troops in Egypt and U.S. soldiers will also come, if needed. Immigration is therefore becoming a danger and it stops.

According to the government and the Zionists, the U.S. aid in all its forms is a bluff. American investments, creation of industries. But the textile workers remain unemployed, textile factories close their doors, but they open stores that sell any textiles for dollars. The factories built by the Americans: “Kaiser Frazer” – the tire factory, depends exclusively on raw materials from America. If the Americans want to, we work, if not, the factory will be shut down. What do we do about the immigrants, who feed them? And then the associations help one another. The Agency limits immigrations, meaning it accepts entrance to Israel only for certain people: young, to be cannon meat, limit 35 years old, trained, Haluti – wealthy people who can settle themselves. People can’t even bring relatives without the Agency’s approval. Even from the countries where Jews “are in danger”. The Zionist parties have begun to suspect each other: MAPAI will bring only its people, say Klal and the Zionists and the same for the Clerical Party in the government coalition “Agudat Yisrael”. Instead, they are widening the old and building new ones, they are extending and building new airfields – the Americans are looking for oil, they are strengthening the army reserves by broadening recruitment (married women).

This is what the American money is for. The government is saying that out of the $68 million subsidy so long waited for and finally promised by the Americans, 17 million will be used to purchase – also in America – food. No mentioning about the rest of it. They do mention occasionally the “American support for arming”. The money will be spent on arming.

The Israeli Chief of Staff visited the Association of Industrialists a few days ago and he announced that he was arming. “Kol-Haam” was the only one to explain the visit as a preparation for changing the industry into war industry. That will most certainly happen with American money.

In light of the decision it is clear the purpose of the attacks against U.S.S.R., against us and other countries in the peace camp in relation to the emigration. Jewish emigration is not the main issue, but the attack against the socialist countries, attack which gives an opportunity to slander socialism, the people’s democracy regime, the release of the peoples, against peoples in Israel.

The Zionist media as well as the I.C.P.’s, haven’t discussed the issue yet-seriously. Some Zionist newspapers seem astounded. “Davar” and the government newspapers defend the decision.

The mass’s attitude in this matter is yet to be known. I think that the people from Maabarots and Bet-Olim will be pleased; I reached this conclusion from the fact that “the oldest” showed obvious lack of sympathy “the newest” as if they were uninvited competitors.

I believe a clarifying action will begin, especially that the Zionists have already begun. “Davar”, after saying in an article the difficulties and the chaotic development of the state due to emigration, writes:

a) Briefly: state, government, regime, order, understanding, civic duties, of the old and new citizens, as well as guidance, and not the chaos of the great emigration current.

b) However, during these three and a half years, so far, as well as right now, it was obvious that building the country, developing and building its image will not be possible with

66

a chaotic emigration, that can gets us in so much debt that no fluctuating capital would be able to get us out, especially that this is not only a matter of finances.

c) But the ample circles of the people will not allow to be misled by those who always seek sins. They – it’s important that they know and understand.

The Communist Party’s media only released information so far. By the illusion that it would be better now if there are no newcomers and to clarify the

government’s and the Zionists’ criminal policy in relation to this matter. I will follow up on things and report back. I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect.

(Ss) Davidovici


38

TELEGRAM OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMA NIA TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON ISSUES RELATE TO

BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 939 March 6, 1952, Tel Aviv, 3.00 h For your information we’re communicating:

The Israeli government, through its legation in Bucharest, as well as through the Netherlands Legation, has requested repeatedly the Romanian government’s agreement for Israel’s adherence to the Civil Procedure Convention from Hague in 1905.

Today, March 6, Baruch1) was invited to the M.F.A., where he was informed that, while Israel insists so much on this issue, it is leaving unresolved a number of issues concerning the Romanian state: the case of sailor Dăianu2), the Romanian amounts of money blocked in the Israeli banks etc.

He implied that they are expecting a manifestation from the Israeli Government for the resolution of these outstanding issues.

(Ss) Preoteasa

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1952, vol. 15, f. 98 and 99; Ibidem, vol. 16, f. 45.

1) Niv Baruch was first secretary within the Israel Legation in Bucharest. 2) This is about the request for extradition of Ionel Dăianu, operator on “Transilvania” ship, who in the spring of 1951 remained in Israel, requesting political asylum and considered defector by the Romanian authorities. See AMFA, Israel matter. Problem 220/1950-1953, unpaged. See also “Scânteia”, Year XXI, no. 2273, Feb. 15, 1952, p. 3.

67

39


CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE ISRAEL ’S INTERNAL SITUATION

No. 5 055 April 21, 1952, Tel Aviv 1. The [Israeli] M.F.A. requested us, by Verbal note, to inform you that Avidan1), who is

to enter the P.R.R. within April 21-23, was appointed Chargé d’affaires ad interim. 2. Following the situation created in connection with the ship “Transilvania”2), please

communicate to me immediately your orders. Regarding the legation’s “Buletinul”, I suggest you send us the manuscript and the photos by airmail and we will print the one in Romanian here as well, as I reported previously, precisely because of the current situation, the probability of which is known to me. We need paper in order to preserve estimates.

3. The exhibit3), closed in Tel Aviv on April 16, will open in Nazareth sometimes after May 1st, due to technical reasons and because of the state of siege there.

After provoking the catholic reaction, in connection with the government, state of siege was declared in the city last week; the population was not authorized to leave the house for 4 days, not even for going to work, just one hour each day to buy food. The situation created justifies not having the communal elections and people fear that the challenges will be taken somewhere else as well.

4. The Communist Party initiated the conference of the works councils’ members, which called the masses of workers to strike and rally on April 24 against the policy of starvation and war preparation.

(Ss) Stănescu4) AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1952, vol. 16, f. 82.

1) Moshe Avidan (Walter), Israeli diplomat, he was subdirectory (1949-1950) and deputy director general (1950-52) of the Eastern Europe Division within the M.F.A. He was born in Târgu Mureş in 1914 and he was in Palestine since 1936. Appointed first secretary with the Israeli Legation from Bucharest in 1952, replacing Niv Baruch. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1952, vol. 16, f. 21. 2) Reference to transportation by passenger ship “Transilvania” of an Israeli delegation (I.C.P.) which was to attend an international economic conference in Moscow, raising the question of covering the expenses (in part), including those necessary for transiting Romania. 3) This is about the travelling exhibition of Romania organized by the Israeli Democratic Women’s Association and opened on Mar. 15, 1952, in Jerusalem, in the presence of approximately 300 guests; afterwards on Apr. 2, in Tel Aviv. 4) Constantin I. Stănescu (b. 1911), Romanian lawyer and diplomat. Graduate of the Academy of Lyon (1933), employed by the M.F.A. on Aug. 7, 1948. First secretary, then Counsellor at Tehran (1948-1951), plenipotentiary minister in Tel Aviv (Dec. 10, 1951-Dec. 31, 1952). On Jan. 1, 1953 he was transferred to the Ministry of Justice. Afterwards he went back to the M.F.A. (1957), ambassador in Baghdad (1969) and San Jose (1973-1977); he retired on Jan. 1, 1978. AMFA, founds 01/Personal files, f. S-34.

68

40

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY BILATERAL RELATIONS AN D

THE LUNCH ORGANIZED BY THE WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 5 074 May 25, 1952, Tel Aviv, 12.20 h Today I had lunch at Mrs. Weizmann, the wife of State President. Only the aide to the

President and Rubin, their former minister in Bucharest, with their wives were present. After dinner, Mrs. Weizmann and Rubin took us aside and asked us, almost without introduction, if the P.R.R. could sell crude oil to Israel because, since England refused to grant credits, the competent circles consider that we should address the P.R.R. I told them that nobody approached in regard to this issue and I am not aware of the government’s position. They said it would be better if I asked in Bucharest. Later, Rubin told me that there is interest in trade with P.R.R. He asked me to pass on, without any comment, that he is interested in the fate of detainees Zisu and Schein1), assuring me that if comrade Ana Pauker2) hears about this they will be released and they will come to Israel they will not slander the P.R.R.

(Ss) Stănescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1952, vol. 15, part II, f. 91. Ibidem, vol. 16, f. 113.

41

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON

THE SOVIET-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

No. 5 172 July 22, 1953, Tel Aviv, 14.12 h

1. The news of resuming diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R.1) were received with joy and satisfaction by the masses and created an atmosphere favourable to the peace camp. The entire press comments favourably the resumption of relations. The right-wing press writes that the Soviet Legation will settle in Jerusalem and they tie the resumption of the relations to the resumption of emigration from the peace camp countries.

2. The Zionist Youth told me that since the Federation responded to their request, the J.S.U. [Jewish Student Union] arranged the free trip in P.R. of Bulgaria to the festival2). The

1) Reference to the lawsuit filed against a group of Zionist leaders led by Zissu and Schein. The public trial took place in 1952, the Israeli Legation protesting against blaming the Zionist movement in Romania. 2) She was to be replaced on May 26, from the leadership of M.F.A., due to reorganization of the R.L.P. leadership and to Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej taking the leading position. 1) On Feb. 11, 1953, the Soviet government broke diplomatic relations with Israel, due to the fact that a bomb exploded on Feb. 9th at the headquarters of the U.S.S.R. Legation from Tel Aviv. The President of Israel condemned this act of terrorism, apologizing to the authorities from Kremlin. The diplomatic relations between the two states were resumed on Jul. 20, 1953. 2) This is about the World Festival of Youth from Bucharest.

69

ship “Sulina” can not take the U.I.C.Y. delegation, which [was] unable to go to the festival4). Today I am issuing the passports with the visa applied for the Zionists.

(Ss) Huţanu3)


42


THE DISCUSSION IN KNESSET ON THE ISSUE OF EMIGRATION OF THE FAMILIES FROM ROMANIA

No. 5 199 August 7, 1953, Tel Aviv, 3.00 h Top secret

Idov Cohen, MP native from the P.R.R., requested yesterday in Parliament for the issue of the “families in the P.R.R.” to be discussed. Sharett denied his request, arguing [emphasis in text – our ref.] that the Israeli Legation in Bucharest is dealing with this issue and discussing it in Parliament would not help the legation. All the MPs, except for Cohen, voted for Sharett’s position.

2. To your telegram no. 6 598.

I have not engaged in any way to ease his mother’s departure. I have not talked to him of any audience with comrade Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej1). When he brought the issue up, I told him to resolve it as he sees fit.

(Ss) Huţanu


4) Eventually the U.I.C.Y. participated at the festival with 118 members. 3) Virgil E. Huţanu (1925-1978), Romanian party activist and diplomat. Employed by the M.F.A. as third secretary at the Consular Affairs Department (1951); second secretary and Chargé d’affaires with the Legation from Tel Aviv (Dec. 1952-Nov. 1954). Afterwards in Washington (1956-1959), first secretary in London (1959-1960), Consul general in Sidney (1973-1975); deputy director of the Consular Affairs Department (1969-1973). AMFA, founds 01 /Personal files, f. H-89. 1) Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (1901-1965), Romanian politician. Secretary General (1945-1954) and first secretary (1955-1965) of the C.C. of the R.L.P. Chairman of the Council of Ministers (Jun. 2, 1952-Oct. 3, 1955) and President of the State Council (Mar. 21, 1961-Mar. 19, 1965).

70

43


THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS

No. 5 207 August 14, 1953, Tel Aviv, 15.45 h Top secret In a recent discussion with Levontino, the manager of the National Bank of Israel,

telling me that Israel is making trade exchanges with the P.R.R., he added that Israel would like to expand these trade relations. I told him that, in principle, our country is willing to extend trade relations with any country, adding, however, that I can not discuss anything specific with him, since the Legation doesn’t have a trade representative, but I could pass on some possible proposals that we would be presented to us. Please inform me how I should continue discussions with him at the reception [on the occasion of 23 August – our ref.], which I believe he will attend.

(Ss) Huţanu


44


THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS

No. 5274 10 November 1953, Tel Aviv, 1.55 h Top secret The issue of repatriations is escalating. In the past 2 days of audience we gave forms to

180 new people. Friday, November 6, there were 200 persons for the audience. They held a brief rally in the legation’s courtyard, with slogans, cheers and applauses. Almost all newspapers published the news that we are approving repatriations. A journalist from “Viaţa noastră” wanted to come to the legation for clarifications. We didn’t receive him. The press’s general line is the attempt to present as sole reason for the increasing trend to leave as a desire of those who enlist to reunite with their families left back in the P.R.R. The issue from the 9th this month of “Zmanim” newspaper is wondering whether by accepting the repatriation requests our legation isn’t overstepping the usual practices of diplomatic relations and demands reciprocity for the Israeli Legation to Bucharest. The M.F.A. might call me for relations.

Please communicate what action I should take under such circumstances.

(Ss) Huţanu AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1953, vol. 20, part II, f. 59.

71

45

NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G

THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS

No. 5283-5284 17 November 1953, Tel Aviv, 23.45 h Although departures from Israel to various capitalist countries exceed in 1953 the

monthly average of 1,200 people, the press and the authorities are not too alarmed yet. Following the decision of the P.R.R. government, as well as the increasing trend of departing for the P.R.R., the reaction began to pay special attention to the departures issue in general and especially to those who can go to the P.R.R.

MP Rafael Hapoel Hamizrachi raised the question of departures in Parliament, asking the government to restudy the issue of granting exist visas and the law regarding issuing passports. The press reacts, they write every day long articles about the issue of departures in general and stories from the emigrants’ discussions in our legation courtyard.

“Hatzofe” newspaper (issue from the 16th of this month) writes among other things: “Hundreds of people are staying in line shameless at the Romanian Legation to obtain entrance visas for the Romanian territory”. “Yedyoth Ahronoth” newspaper (issue from the 16th of this month) writes in an article that Israel has intervened with the P.R.R. government to allow emigration, then continued: “When pressure from Israel increased, the Romans decided to submit a counter-paper and invite the emigrants in the P.R.R. to argue the rejection of the emigration request with the fact that thousands of emigrants from Romania regret they emigrated” . “Viaţa noastră” newspaper (issue from the 13th of this month) accuses “Renaşterea” saying that way it dealt with the issue of returning to the P.R.R. was prejudicial, writing: “When he put his hand on the trigger, Kohavi forgot to aim the barrel at the enemies and it is no wonder if we will take the bullets that he is trying to shoot”.

The people who come at the Legation tell us that the propaganda against the departures to the P.R.R. are intensifying everywhere, trying to scare people with camps, prisons etc. One of them was threatened that if he leaves “one of ours from Romania will kill you”. In some Maabarots all those who submitted forms are dropped and no longer given work.

M.I.A. refuses to apply the exit visa on the repatriation certificates, asking people to have their Israeli passports issued under the pretext that they are Israeli citizens. I told them to wait.

If Tocaci is late, please respond to this matter via telegraph. Today there were about 600 people at the legation, although it keeps on raining.

(Ss) Huţanu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel-Aviv, 1953, vol. 20, part II, f. 81-82.

72

46

REPORT OF VIRGIL HU ŢANU, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM ISRAEL

No. 1 026 December 20, 1953, Tel Aviv On December 7, current year David Ben Gurion presented to the President of Israel

[Ben-Zvi] his resignation from the position of Prime Minister. Implicitly the entire cabinet resigned. Based on the “transitional law” all the ministers – except for Ben Gurion – remain at their posts until a new cabinet is formed. B. Gurion’s place is held by Moshe Sharett.

This is the second government crisis during the ten months of coalition. After the rumours related to the resignation of B. Gurion, which had been spreading for

a few months, were confirmed, B. Gurion, MAPAI and the entire bourgeois media have tried to present his resignation as being caused by fatigue.

During the period before confirming B. Gurion’s intention to resign and until he submitted it, the bourgeois media used its best endeavours to portray B. Gurion to the population as a clean man, as a true leader of the people, who had nothing in common with the terrible domestic and external situation that Israel was in. The newspapers were trying to show, in full-page articles, that the people regretted deeply that B. Gurion was resigning his leading position and how it would be a great loss for the people.

According to the party’s press, and the discussions had with local friends, it seems that the real reason for his resignation was fatigue, but the consequence of his leadership, both politically and especially economically, internally and externally.

Israel’s economic and financial situation is now worse than ever. The number of unemployed is increasing. Industry laid-off 20,000 workers, 10,000 from the construction industry. The industry is working only with 25% of the production capacity.

In the attempt to solve partially the unemployment problem, the government introduced the so-called unproductive works, for which they give a forced wage, which represents only 60% of the regular salary. The living standards dropped by 50%. Thousands of people are leaving the villages where they had gone to work in agriculture, and tens of thousands are leaving the country (all the data above is taken from the speech of S. Mikunis, the Secretary-General of I.C.P., given at a Party meeting, published in “Kol-Ham” on November 5).

The Parliamentary debates from November (“Kol-Haam”, November 26, 1953) indicate that in the Maabarots (“transition” camps) there are another 200,000 people living under the worst possible conditions: lack of water, electricity, schools, not to mention that their homes are made of fabric, boards or metal sheets, which further aggravates the poverty during the heavy rains in the winter.

As a consequence of this situation moral decay worsens, newspapers publish statistics with hundreds of suicide cases. The issue of “Renaşterea noastră” from December 17 writes that the police investigated the 2,000 juvenile offenders (the newspaper is reluctant to say when. However, they added that these cases amplify especially among the new immigrants).

From a financial perspective, Israel’s current external debt amounts to nearly four hundred million dollars, mostly to the U.S. (“Kol-Haam” and other newspapers from September 7, 1953), the interest alone for the 130 million borrowed from the American “Export-Import” Bank U.S. being of 70,875,000 (3.5% interest per annum – the loan is on 15 years).

73

The lump sum of the external debt also includes the so-called “independence loan” taken by the Jews from the U.S. and Canada, which reached over 150 million until the beginning of September, out of which Israel received only 122 million, the rest representing costs placement of with loan notes. (“Davar”, September 7, current year). The interest on this loan is also 3.5%. Starting from May 1st next year the loan notes will turn into securities, which will mean that the Israeli state-owned enterprises will then be owned by those loaned the money, because Israel has no way of returning those amounts.

Besides the foreign debt, among which the short-term ones (12 months), with a higher interest rate and maturities that strangles the state’s economy, Israel also has internal debt amounting to 241 million Israeli lira (“Haboker”, April 27).

Externally, the policy practiced by the B. Gurion government puts Israel in a semi-insulating position, and the challenges at the borders with the Arab states worsened even more the relations with the neighbours (Kibia situation)1).

In what concerns Israel’s relations with the U.S., the brutal behaviour toward Israel, characteristic to the American foreign policy, was shown openly a while ago. Thus, the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Moshe Sharett himself, had to declare recently in Parliament: “At the core of the U.S. government, like it used to be and now is returning in the English government, there is a tendency to consider too much the countries’ feelings, sometimes or often doing so at the expense of Israel’s vital interests (emphasis by V.H.). Such tendency has always existed in the U.S. policy”. (“Kol-Haam”, December 8, 1953).

Under these economic and political circumstances that were hopeless for the bourgeois government, Ben Gurion, who didn’t want to give up the role of “leader” of Israel, withdrew from the government trying to get off scot-free and to give the people the possibility to forget everything that his policy did to Israel. According to the press, Ben Gurion’s intention is to return, after a while, to the government as a “saviour” of the country from the situation which, in the meantime will worsen more and more and to establish a military dictatorship like in Syria, Egypt and Iran. “We’re not buying Ben Gurion’s «fatigue» as a cause for his resignation from the government – declared recently Mikunis. This is only a manoeuvre to return to power at a favourable time in order to gather his «colonies» around him and, under certain circumstances, to establish a military dictatorship similar to the well known «Sisaclian», «Naghivian», «Zahedian» system”. (“Kol-Haam”, November 15, 1953). The Parliamentary commentator of “Yedyoth Ahronoth” newspaper compares Ben Gurion, in an article published on October 14, 1953, with Piłsudski, writing that the latter also argued with his party and then established a military dictatorship.

Although the media does not reveal any direct or indirect interference of the Americans in Ben Gurion’s resignation, we believe that it was orchestrated by them, with the purpose of protecting Ben Gurion from being completely compromised and to keep him on the “on the bench” so they could bring him back at the leadership of the state at the right moment as dictator.

The way things went so far confirms the above. Thus, when he withdrew from the government Ben Gurion, did not remain in his comfortable home in Tel Aviv, he settled in the «apolitical» kibbutz «Sde-Boker» from the Negev desert, like a «simple» shepherd and farmer, and his wife as a sister of charity. Through this «descent» in the nation B. Gurion aims to draw the attention and admiration of the population, meaning him, a prime minister, left his position voluntarily and became a shepherd. At the same time the bourgeois media and

1) Reference to the armed clashes on the night of October 14 to 15, 1953 at the Israeli-Jordanian border, resulting in numerous deaths, injuries and property damage; the Jordanian government requested the intervention of the UN Security Council and the military support of Iran and of the Arab League. On Oct. 19, during a speech given on the radio, Ben Gurion expressed his regret for the incident in Kibia village, considered as a popular reaction and not an action of the regulated troops.

74

especially MAPAI’s is trying to deify him in long articles and to create a myth around him, comparing him to Napoleon and other such figures by presenting him as a true «Messiah », in order with the purpose of preparing in advance the ground for his return as dictator. In this regard, “Davar” newspaper wrote in the issue from November 12: “And during period [in his resignation – our ref.] we will continue to see in our midst B. Gurion as a great comrade and a great genius, who directs the party thinking, encourages its efforts and to undertake big and bold actions” and further, following the line of preparing the ground for his return, the newspaper writes: “We are sure that it won’t be long and Ben Gurion will return to his duties in the government, will sit at the helm of the state and of the party with all his physical and intellectual powers”.

Another thing that also confirms the I.C.P. provisions is Ben Gurion’s speech at “Kol-Israel” Radio on the evening of the 7th, in which he gave a central place to the army. He said among other things: “I confess that I find it difficult to separate from the Israeli army - safe bulwark of the state and place for raising the man and forming the people of Israel”.

A few days after Ben-Gurion’s resignation and after consultations with the political

parties, the President gave Moshe Sharett the task to form a new government. MAPAI also designated the following: Lavon2), Minister of Security, Z. Aron, minister

without portfolio. According to the press, Sharett continue to hold the position in the M.F.A. The American press is pleased that Sharett was charged with forming the new

government. Thus, “New York Times” wrote: “Moshe Sharett is considered to be one of the most illustrious politicians of Israel [...] For years he was known by many Foreign Affairs Ministries as a fearless fighter for the cause of his people under his former Russian name – Shertok and changing his name to «Sharett» which means servant [in Hebrew – our ref.] fits very well his ideas about his new task in the new state”. (According to “Davar” issue from November 25th, current year).

Although it has been more than 10 days, the government crises has not ended yet, because the Klal Zionist Party (representing the grand bourgeoisie) no longer wishes to accept participation in the government based on the coalition’s old platform. They have demands, such as the following: the position of vice-president of the Council of Ministers (which does not exist), Minister of Finance, or at least the position of Director of the Department of Foreign Currency, senior officials in the M.F.A. (and diplomatic representatives abroad) as well as in the Ministry of Security and Education, subdirectory at the State Bank, cancellation of control over foreign currency, the transfer of the Loan Department to the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (held by Bernstein, Klal-Zionist) and others. (According to “Hadoram” newspaper from November 23, 1953).

Due to these multiple demands made by the Klal-Zionists, the negotiations between them and MAPAI were interrupted for several days, MAPAI initially refusing to accept them; in the past few days negotiations were resumed again, but still don’t know the results.

At the same time, MAPAI is having negotiations for admission into the coalition with MAPAM, which in its continuous orientation to the right-wing, agreed to have these negotiations and, of course, under the pressure from the right-wing of the party’s leadership, would accept its entrance in the current coalition, if MAPAI would allow it. According to the articles in the press, as well as from the discussions had with local friends (a member of the C.C. of I.C.P.), the negotiations between MAPAI and MAPAM’s leadership are merely a manoeuvre of the first, who needs these negotiations in order to put pressure on the Klal-

2) Pinhas Lavon (1904-1976), Israeli politician. Secretary General of Histadrut; minister of Agriculture (1950-1951), minister without portfolio (1952-1954), of Defence (1954-1955), he withdrew from politics after the “Lavon scandal”. See also doc no. 78, 79.

75

Zionists so they would give up some of their demands and to show the workers that MAPAI made an effort to attract MAPAM at the “burden of power”.

We have no definite data on how will be solved the current government crisis. However,

we presume it will end with new concessions by MAPAI in favour of the Klal-Zionist Party. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1953, unpaged.

47


PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME ZIONIST LEADERS

No. 127 -128 May 26, 1954, Tel Aviv, 22.00 h Top secret The hunger strike to which participated 48 persons started on the 23rd of this month with

a rally at the Great Synagogue in Tel Aviv in front of approximately 700 people, out of which 200 were on the street attracted the speakers installed for this event. The Chief Rabbi, who opened the meeting, and the chairman of Sohnut presented a protest against the “conviction of the P.R.R. Zionist”, congratulating the strikers for their solidarity and protest action. On the 24th of this month MPs [Idov ]Cohen [1909, Mihăileni-1998] and [Baruch] Kamin [1914, Bassarabia-1988] requested the Parliament to take action against the convictions in the P.R.R. Sharett responded on behalf of the government “that it was shaken by the news about the trials that took place and the death sentences. Based on the information received the government is convinced that the only true reason for arresting the Jewish leaders is their devotion to Zionism and Aliyah [...]*), that they did not slander the interests of the political and social regime in Romania. The government will not stop warning against this injustice, demanding the release of the arrested Zionists and their right to come to Israel”.

Sharett proposed “not to discuss the issue in Parliament, given the serious and uncommon nature of the matter and be sent to the Foreign Policy Committee of the Parliament”.

All the royalist newspapers are carrying out an extended propaganda for instigation and slander against the P.R.R., offering the strikers moral support. The strikers were visited by members of the government, representatives of the parties, of Sohnut, Histadrut, rabbis, journalists and the public. The newspapers show that strikers received letters and telegrams from people in the country and abroad who wanted to show their support. Sermons were held in synagogues, in some cities there were rallies, and in others rallies are scheduled. P.C.I. disseminated a manifesto against this campaign and MP Wilner took action in Parliament. He also scheduled public meetings in various cities. Starting the 23rd of this month the Police guarding the legation doubled its agents; on the inside we took measures to strengthen security. (To be continued)

(Ss) Huţanu AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1954, vol. 24, f. 39, 42.

*) Missing text - our ref.

76

48


PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME ZIONIST LEADERS

No. 130-131-132-133 May 28, 1954, Tel Aviv, 9.50 h Top secret Follow-up to our telegram no. 127-1281): During the 26th the strikers were visited by many delegates. The leaders of the

delegations spoke one by one on loudspeakers in front of the synagogue. The President of the Parliament [Sprinzak] asked the strikers to stop the strike as the main goal and was reached “awakening the public opinion which would lead to the change of the situation in Romania regarding Zionism”. On May 27 the reactionary press published large articles on the progress of the strike, asking the people to attend the rally in front of the synagogue. Also, cars with loudspeakers circulated the streets all day long, calling the population to the rally.

The strikers were visited by many delegates and personalities, among which: the wife of the President, the Minister Religious Affairs, the President of the Parliament and many MPs. In the afternoon the strikers were visited by Sharett, who praised their actions ensuring them “ that the state has and will provide all the moral support for the release of the convicted Zionists and Aliyah, which will contribute to strengthening relations between Israel and the country in question”. Sharett asked them to end the strike. The proposal was accepted, the strike ending on the 27th, 7 p.m., with a rally that had been organized beforehand. The meeting was attended by approximately 1,500 people who listened on the loudspeakers the message on discs issued by Ben Gurion, who was on the strikers’ side, urging them to continue fighting for their release and for Aliyah. In conclusion they read the strikers’ a press release announcing they were ending the strike but will continue to fight by other means for their release.

The evolution of the strike shows that this campaign is organized by the government and the Zionist organizations, who have prepared in advance the verve in the press and in the city, who organized the sending of the delegates to the synagogue and to visit the strikers. The active and open support the government by: Sharett’s statement in Parliament and him and the other ministers visiting to the strikers, the message sent by the President [], B. Gurion’s message, the radio broadcasts of “Kol-Israel”, the press and the delegations who visited the strikers, give the entire campaign a character of interference of the Israeli government in the internal affairs of P.R.R. and highlight that the government and the reactionary circles from Israel did everything they could to give a broader, mass character to this campaign of hatred and incitation against the P.R.R.

However, the action had a weak echo among the masses and did not bring the results expected by the initiators. Our best friends think that the P.R.R. government should send a protest note (through the Israeli Legation to Bucharest) against the Israeli interference in the internal affairs of the P.R.R. campaign of slander and instigations against our country, organized and supported by the Israeli government. We warned us that Sharett might submit written or verbal protest writing through us, recommending us to be prepared to respond immediately if the case may be.

1) See doc. no. 47.

77

We are suggesting that unless there are other reasons to consider, our government should send a protest note based on the advice given by our best friends. Please tell us what actions to take in case of a verbal or written protest.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1954, vol. 24, f. 45, 48.

49


THE ISRAELI MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN GOVERNME NT’S POSITION TOWARDS THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS

No. 145-146 June 12, 1954, Tel Aviv, 13.11 h, 13.15 h Top secret Follow-up to our telegram no. 1441). 2. Our government’s note had a weak echo, it was published in full only by the

newspapers of Kol-Haam Party and by “Glasul Poporului”, whereas the other newspapers published only fragments, generally opposing Sharett’s speech to the Note.

Absolutely predominant in the media is the adverse comment of the Note and the forecasts made by the media regarding the Israeli government’s response indicate that the press is given a line to prepare the ground favourable for publishing the Israeli Note. The adverse comments can be grouped as follows:

1. The bodies and the population cannot remain indifferent to the conviction and extermination of their relatives and friends.

2. Family reunification cannot be solved only by departures from Israel, but by mutual departures both from Israel and the P.R.R.

3. Israel did not prevent the action for the return of families to the P.R.R. and cannot be blamed for this, on the contrary the P.R.R. is to blame.

4. It cannot be considered interference with the internal affairs of the P.R.R. the fact that Sharett declared that Zionist leaders were sentenced in the P.R.R., because the State of Israel, counting on the concentration of Jews everywhere, cannot remain indifferent to the persecution faced by Jews in the P.R.R.

5. Normal relations tie us to the release of the Zionists and emigration; we mention that some newspapers bring vile insults to the P.R.R., to the P.R.R. regime and government in their editorial.

Currently we have very little chance to determine the bourgeois newspapers to make favourable comments on the Note. Using known journalists we succeeded to have our Note published in full in “Haaretz”, without any comments. It was also published in “Drumul”.

(Ss) Pricop 2)


1) See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1954, vol. 24, f. 75. 2) Ioari Pricop (b. 1924), Romanian party activist and diplomat. Employee of the M.F.A. (1953), first secretary in Prague (1953), since Jan. 5, 1954 in Tel Aviv and since Nov. 30, 1956 in Rangoon. Afterwards, starting Jan. 1, 1960 he had party related responsibilities. AMFA, founds 01/Personal files, f. I-159.

78

50

NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE BUCHAREST GOVERNMENT’S POSITION IN RELATION TO

THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS AND THE RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT

No. 169-170 July 22, 1954, Tel Aviv, 10.02 h Top secret 1. In relation to the Response Note of the Israeli government, the newspapers publish on

the front page, under various headlines, Sharett’s statement made yesterday, July 21, in Parliament, in response to the interpellation of a Mapaist MP. The statement said: “The Israeli Note defines the Romanian Government’s Note as being based on checked facts. The Israeli government declares that no campaign will be run in Israel against the government, the people or the social and political regime from the P.R.R.”. Then it says that: “The Israeli Note defines as unconvincing the statements of the Romanian Government that those over 100 Jews who received a long term sentence in the P.R.R. were found guilty of espionage”. The Note emphasizes that: “the Jewish public opinion in the world will not receive this statement and that the way of life of the prisoners who have dedicated their work to the ideal of rebirth and independence of the Jewish people are enough to dismiss this accusation. The Israeli Government will not be able to deviate from the principle of freedom of thought and expression that underlie social order and politics in Israel and repress free expression of solidarity which is in no way inconsistent with the international practice. The Israeli Government reaffirms its tendency to maintain normal relations with the P.R.R. and mentions that the release of the prisoners and their arrival in Israel would greatly promote the relations between the two countries and expresses confidence that Romania would have reason to regret such a generous and judicious act. The Israeli Government rejects the Romanian Government’s claim that thousands of Jews native from the P.R.R. want to return and they are not given the opportunity. He says that the Israeli authorities are not preventing their departure and the number of those who decided to emigrate is equal to the number of those who left the country that is 23 people until today, most of them with Israeli citizenship”.

Further, the Note says that “tens of thousands of Jews have asked the Romanian authorities permission to go to Israel and that so far it was positive. The Israeli Government appeals to the Romanian Government to allow emigration of those who want to leave and draw attention particularly to the unbearable situation of those who tend to join their families in Israel”. The newspapers show that the note concludes: “The news of Romania opening its gates to those who tend to go to Israel will have a very positive echo in Israel, which will spread to the entire the Jewish world”.

Since we do not know the exact wording of the Note, we can not tell to what extent Sharett’s declarations correspond to the Note handed to him.

(Ss) Pricop

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1954, vol. 24, f. 134, 137.

79

51

REPORT OF ENG. MIHAI PETRI, HEAD OF THE ROMANIAN ECONOMIC DELEGATION, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST TRADE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL

Confidential October 14, 1954, Bucharest In this regard we will show the following aspects, mentioning that for the details,

especially trade related, one can use the field reports sent to the M.C.E. and the texts of the agreements:

1. The Delegation. The delegation was led by the undersigned, Engineer Michael Petri, as president, comrade Eng. Vicol Vasile and comrade Ion Petre, as members. In the field, at certain meeting, the delegation was completed by comrade I. Pricop, the chargé d’affaires a.i. of the P.R.R. in Israel, and comrade V. Huţanu, second secretary of our legation in Tel Aviv, as observers.

2. Duration of the business trip. Departure from Bucharest on July 25, 1954. Arrival in Israel on august 3, 1945 (with a 9 days stopover in Switzerland and Austria, where we had current business tasks). Work in Israel ended on September 27, 1954, after which, with another two day stopover in Vienna, we arrived in Bucharest on October 1.

3. The Delegation’s tasks. The delegation received upon departure a file containing the instructions assigned by the Ministry and the documentation (specifications, without merchandise, data and trade sheets, samples etc.).

Broadly the tasks were: - The conclusion of a trade and payments agreement between the P.R.R. and Israel; - Examine the conditions under which we could establish an Economic Agency in Israel - Verifying Jon Gordon’s work, the representative in Tel Aviv of some of our companies; - Market research; - Placement and purchase of goods, based on the companies’ indications and within a new trade instrument;

4. The Israeli delegation. The Israeli delegation was composed of: M[oshe] Bartur, director of Economic Directorate within the M.F.A., as president, and H. Kaplan, export director within the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, J. Virgin, import subdirectory within the same Ministry, R. Baruch, external payments subdirectory within the Ministry of Finance, U. Nedivi, subdirectory of Economic Directorate within the M.F.A., as members;

The following were also part of the legation, as observers: Z. Argaman, Chargé d’affaires of Israel to Bucharest, A[viezer] Chelouche, Head of the Eastern Europe [Section] of the M.F.A.’s Political Directorate.

5. Results obtained. Following the negotiations, on September 9, 1954, trade and payments agreements were concluded between P.R.R. and Israel.

The agreements are valid from the date of signature until December 31, 1955, with the tacit extension clause for subsequent periods of one year.

The actual volume of the trade agreement is of $ 2,550,000 in each direction. The goods to be exchanged are broadly the following:

P.R.R. export: softwood lumber, hardwood lumber, fruit crates, petroleum products, paper products, chemicals, carbon black, electrode paste, glassware, broom straws, prunes,

80

spices, fruit pulp, wine distillate, slivovitz and ţuica, chicory, medicinal herbs, hair, guts, miscellaneous;

P.R.R. Import: Citrus, concentrates, essential oils, margarine, cocoa powder, chemicals and fertilizers, antibiotics, wool yarns, Sizal rope, Manila ropes, fabrics, hosiery, surgical and medical equipment, watches, dental material, refrigeration apparatus, miscellaneous.

Separately from the agreement, but related to agreement by an appendix letter, it was provided the export by us of $ 500,000 worth of softwood lumber in exchange of raw wool imports, therefore cargo from the pound area in transit through Israel. This letter also stipulates the possibility of extending this operation, either by increasing the share of timber and therefore increasing the share of wool, or with by bringing other goods on each side.

In another letter, Annex to the Agreement, the Israeli government communicates its agreement in principle for the establishment in Israel of a commercial representative of the P.R.R.

6. Collaboration with the P.R.R. Legation to Tel Aviv. I consider that this collaboration was generally good, meaning that besides the administrative help (car, telephones, telegrams, typewriters, etc.), we received help from the comrades at the Legation, especially comrade Pricop and comrade Huţanu, who even if they were unfamiliar with foreign trade issues, however, when it comes to the economical-political problems, they painted us a pretty clear image of the situation and we found out many things. They also provided us with documentary material and they put us in contact both with the authorities and with friends.

On our part, we tried to inform the Legation constantly related to the ongoing aspects of the operations and, at the same time, to analyze jointly the measures to be taken in order to intertwine the commercial and political aspects. I must mention the good connections that the Legation, in particular comrade Pilu, has in the media. Indeed, since our request and until we left the P.R.R. was strong popularized, in relation with the negotiations, using the P.R.R.-Israel Friendship League, the local committee for the East-West trade development, and with the media, not only the friend press, but also a great deal of the bourgeois media.

As a lack of Legation I must mention that, before our arrival, the contempt with general knowledge of the political and economic situation, without learning about a series of problems which only seemingly could be regarded as politically independent, but in reality they were intertwined with politics.

Moreover, this lack has also been revealed by the commercial sector of our best friends during the last meeting we had before leaving. Comrade Huţanu attended this meeting as well. Our best friends suggested that the comrades from the Legation should go visit them from time to time, on the overtake them, especially to learn about the general economic-commercial aspects, without which one cannot correctly the political situation in Israel.

Following the overall analysis of the joint work, performed the day before we left, com[rade] Pricop noted this lack, and said he will take measures to remedy it.

7. Collaboration with best friends. Following the connections made by the Legation, we had many meetings, in various stages of negotiation, and we received plenty of help. This help is closely related to the positive results obtained by our delegation.

8. Assessment of the Israeli delegation and the other authorities. In terms of our arrival, apart from the fact that we were on the same plane with Z. Argaman, Chargé d’affaires of Israel to Bucharest, who also received us at the airport, we were greeted by Mr. Vacasov Yamay from Protocol on behalf of the Israeli M.F.A. When we left we were taken to the airport by A. Chelouche, the Head of the Eastern Europe Service within the M.F.A. Political Directorate. Aside from our comrades from our Legation, both on arrival and on departure, groups of members of the P.R.R. – Israel Friendship League were presented with flowers and a few nice words.

81

Israel’s economic delegation was appreciated by the best friends as a strong delegation. The Chairman, M. Bartur, is the one who has signed all the agreements in Tel Aviv. His superior is the minister. The members of the Commission are important representatives of the other economic ministries.

During all the scheduled meetings, the Israeli delegation displayed a courtesy behaviour, as a whole. I was treated the same way when I went, for various trade issues, to the other authorities.

9. General situation and political climate. In terms of the general commercial – economic situation, it cannot be presented in a few sentences. This situation was analyzed in details in the reports and the telegrams sent to the Ministry of Foreign Trade, from the field. I am only mentioning that this general situation can be considered to have been favourable to negotiations.

Regarding the situation and the political climate I must mention the following: - We can say that the general atmosphere was favourable during our stay in Israel, not

only when it comes to the progressive circles or organizations, but also to most of right-wing media;

- The campaign for the Zionists that were arrested had ended before our arrival. The media was rarely publishing anything, and when they did it had to do with petitions that the Jewish Agency intended to send to various diplomatic offices of the P.R.R.;

- We believe that the authorities have shut down on all levels this media campaign because really Israel wanted to sign the trade agreement with us;

- After the amnesty decree was published, the general favourable atmosphere got more intense;

- The press was kept continuously vigilant, both through the various official releases from the authorities or commercial institutions concerned, and especially through the work of our Legation. I must mention that during the entire period since August 5th, the beginning of the negotiations, until September 9, 1954, the conclusion of the agreements there was never a day when: either the P.R.R. in general, or our negotiations and the importance of various exchange goods for the economy of Israel, or the various trips of our delegation to factories and production sites were not publicized.

- There were however, but quite a few, some articles about our petroleum products. But these articles were either registering balloons, or attempts of the circles interested in relation to the U.S., who are not very happy about moving the petroleum imports to Israel from the U.S. oil imports, or their subjugated areas, U.S.S.R. or P.R.R.

- Along with the signing of the agreements there were various official or political releases characterizing the exchange of goods as interesting for Israel’s economy. The press was publishing separately the assessment made by our authorities on the agreement and there were other announcements also sent by the Legation’s media sector;

- During the festivities for signing the agreements, the Chairman of Israel delegation showed that not only they are interesting for the economies of both sides, they are real, corresponding to the respective economic structures, he also showed that the Israeli authorities consider that the agreement with the P.R.R. will be the second in our area to work well after [the one with] the U.S.S.R. by that he was saying that the agreements with P.R. of Hungary and P.R. of Poland are not working properly;

- I must say that during the negotiations, the Israel delegation made no attempt to discuss the political issues. The discussions were only about commercial matter. The only thing was, both on the starting session for the negotiations, as well as at the end of the negotiations, that the Chairman of the Israel delegation pointed out that “he hoped that by officially concluding the trade agreements, overall relations would improve” without making remarks.

82

- The Chairman of the delegation of Israel wanted to discuss only commercial matters, and he even told me when establishing the framework of the closing festivity, that he thinks this celebration should be restricted to the delegations, without anyone else attending, not from the Political Directorate of the Israeli M.F.A. nor our Chargé d’affaires to Israel, so we wouldn’t shift our discussions from commercial considerations to political considerations, which would disturb the signing ceremony. So the signing took place only in this framework, and soon after we were invited to a dinner party also attended by the director of the Israeli M.F.A.’s Political Directorate, Mr. Bartur and comrade Pricop from our Legation, during which no statements were made. This proves that Israel did not want to complicate things, because it is natural to suppose that Bartur could not make these arrangements on his own, without the approval of the political sector or rather of the Israeli M.F.A. (and the Minister of Foreign Affairs is also President of Council of Ministers of Israel);

- Immediately after signing the agreement, intervened the P.R.R. Note in relation to the secretary of the Israeli Legation to Bucharest, D. Laor1). All the newspapers published it and made, the right-wing press and their assessment, unfavourable:

- However, there were no official statements because it was a Saturday; therefore all the offices were closed. All the newspapers were saying that the authorities will present their opinion. But in the coming days, they were only saying that the authorities can not give their opinion because they expected the report of their Legation to Bucharest;

- Time was passing and, until our departure from Israel therefore almost three weeks, there were still not official statements. The press was writing from time to time that since Z. Argaman, the Israeli Chargé d’affaires to Bucharest, was in Moscow, and since D. Laor hadn’t arrived in Israel yet, the Israeli M.F.A. does not have an official report upon which to express their opinion. On the other hand, D. Laor, although he left Bucharest immediately, instead of taking a flight from Vienna to Tel Aviv, he went to France, where he spent his vacation, and then he was to take the boat to Tel Aviv. That makes one think that Israeli authorities kept Laor away purposely on purpose so the atmosphere would calm down;

- During a meeting I had with the chairman of the Israeli delegation before leaving, he told me that it might have been better “if you had fired Laor for the mistake he made, based on a confidential note to Israel, without so much publicity”. It was obvious that Bartur, had had been given, by the political sector, the task to make this move, but he told me absolutely formal, among other things. I told him that it would have been better if Laor hadn’t done what he did and that was the end of the “intervention” we continued the commercial discussion;

- In the last days before the departure, the media began to publish again some articles of the Jewish Agency in connection with the issue of the “arrested Zionists”, adding that very few have benefited from the amnesty decree and therefore they must resume the respective “petitions”,

- The press also published information on the negative attitude to be taken by Israel in connection with the admission of P.R.R. to U.N.E.S.C.O. It was justified also using the “arrested Zionists” and this information appeared later.

10. Assessment of the political climate. Regarding the facts displayed chronologically at the previous paragraph I must mention the following:

- Israel, or rather a series of very influential circles in Israel’s economy, are in favour of economic relations with our countries. This is because, in general, they wish to oppose a counterweight to the U.S. influence, which lately deals less with Israel and s more interested in the Arab countries;

1) Daniel Laor (b. 1923), former First secretary of the Israeli Legation in Bucharest (Nov. 2, 1953-Sept. 19, 1954), when he was declared “persona non-grata”, being accused of favouring the illegal departure of a Romanian citizen of Hebrew origin. The case was closed very fast. AMFA, founds 10/ Foreign representatives. Israel, f. L-13.

83

- Hence the attitude shown previously; - Of course, depending on the U.S. influence, which is has a strong impact on Israel and

on Moshe Sharett personally, the President of the Council of Ministers, the attitude can change;

- Also a pretty big influence has the Jewish Agency, which constantly agitates the Zionism issue;

- But there are strong contradictions in the Israeli economy and in the political circles. The elections are approaching. There are various platforms in this regard;

- About the attitude during the negotiations and subsequently, the Legation’s press work also had influence. It would have been difficult, after all newspapers had written nice things, in general, about the agreement, to start immediately the defamation related to Laor or on the “arrested Zionists”.

- However, it is not possible to restart a press campaign. Personally, I believe it is very probable. Of course, it depends on a number of factors, including some shown above, on how the agreement with us will evolve, that is on the importance of the commercial operations and on the interest of Israel’s economy (I am talking about the acute need that Israel has for softwood lumber).

I must mention that the best friends’ opinion corresponds with the conclusions that I reached and shown above. They characterize the general political climate in connection with our negotiations, as good overall, but with a tendency to become difficult during the period before our departure.

11. Conclusions. You can understand from the above mentioned that the positive results of our delegation are due to:

- Good cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Trade and volume retailers; - the favourable general situation; - the help received from best friends; - the cooperation and assistance received from the P.R.R. Legation to Tel Aviv and

mention here in particular comrades: Pricop, Huţanu and Pilu; - the team work of the economic delegation. In conclusion, I am mentioning in this note that I tried to capture in particular the

political aspects, thus for the complete analysis of the trade aspects and of the results one must take into consideration the reports and the telegrams set by the delegation, in the field, to the Ministry of Foreign Trade, as well as the texts of those agreements.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1955-1957, unpaged.

52

MEETING TRANSCRIPT * ON THE OCCASION OF VISIT WITH THE M.F.A. OF ZEEV ARGAMAN, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES OF THE STATE OF ISR AEL IN

BUCHAREST, IN RELATION TO THE PROGRESS OF THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS

[September 20], 1955, Bucharest

Argaman says he wants to analyze the exchanges between us and Israel during the

period elapsed since the conclusion of the agreement. He noted that not too many Israeli goods were bought, he is aware the reasons invoked by us, but he says that said that both sides

* The audience took place within 11.00 and 12.15 o’clock.

84

should make efforts to intensify exchanges. He hopes that our delegates in Geneva will receive clear and precise instructions to find fair solutions together with the Israeli delegates. He is analyzing the import and export lists and the status of the contracts; in relation to our exports he is complaining about not having received cases for citrus fruit and oil. He says they can buy the fruit pulp only in exchange for the citrus concentrate.

The mentions that except for the lists, the Israelis are interested in buying from us, for 1956, wheat, corn, oilseed cakes and feed. They would be willing to conclude agreements for a period of 3 years. The volume in excess to the agreement could be covered by triangular operations or bills of quantities. The purpose of his visit, says Argaman, is to find out if our delegation leaving for Geneva knows all the details of our agreement and if it has solid proposals for activating our exchanges.

Comrade Pavel Dan responded: The analysis conducted by Argaman shows that there are possibilities for developing the exchanges. He listened carefully to Argaman’s proposals. He noted the suggestion for triangular exchanges. The proposal to include grain and forage on the lists, as well. Our country is able to increase the effort for Israel in case they are interested in the exchange. The delegations in Geneva will certainly find new possibilities, as triangular operations or other arrangements.

Com[rade] Măgura remind Mr. Argaman the declaration made by com[rade] Minister Marcel Popescu, namely that we are willing to sell in Israel any goods we have available, to the extent that we find products for our import, but the difficulties incurred – pricing issue, disproportion between the volume of the Romanian goods needed by Israel as opposed to the Israeli ones for us – must be resolved. He believes that the delegates in Geneva will find fair conclusions if they know well the current difficulties creating the gap between export and import. They will be able to bring principled solutions, and the joint commissions meeting in Bucharest will make the arrangements.

He mentioned that the prices for the Israeli goods represent a very important issue for us, but especially for Israel, which will be solved by the Delegation in Geneva as well.

Mr. Argaman asked if our delegation knows what goods we would like to buy or sell them in Israel. We replied that our delegation is composed of comrade Petri, who is the general manager of Import, comrade Cogan, deputy director of the Relations II Directorate, and comrade Gall, from Import Direction, therefore they are well prepared for everything.

Argaman thanked us for meeting he found useful. The meeting ended at 12.15 pm.


53


THE IMPACT IN ISRAEL OF THE ROMANIAN FOLK MUSIC CON CERT

No. 2 728 January 31, 1956, Tel Aviv, 16.35 h Top secret On January 30, in the Ohel-Shem hall from Tel Aviv, took place with the support of the

Legation a Romanian folk music concert, attended by approximately 1,000 people, among

85

which members of the diplomatic body, such as Abramov1), Ambassador of the U.S.S.R., Istinely – Minister of Turkey, Zenguliev – Minister of Bulgaria, the chargés d’affaires of Finland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the counsellor to the Soviet Embassy, those from the Turkish, Bulgarian and Italian legations, as well as a large number of friend diplomats.

Also attended Members of Parliament, representatives of the M.F.A., journalists, conductors, composers, artists, teachers, etc. The audience received the program warmly, being enthusiastic about it, which led to the repeating 5 acts.

At the end the audience applauded for a long time the orchestra and the artists who performed the program, and the guests (200) thanked us warmly.

Both the large number of the participants, as well as the great enthusiasm during the program justify our opinion that the concert was a great success.

(Ss) Pricop

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1956, vol. 31, f. 20-21.t5

54

FROM THE GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FOR THE SECOND SEMESTER – 1955, REGARDING

THE ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS

No. 1 123 March 16, 1956, Tel Aviv [...] During the second half of 1955 the development of the relations between Israel and

the P.R.R. was not significantly different compared to the first half of the year. In general, Israel’s attitude towards the P.R.R. was similar to that for the entire socialist

camp: hostile and defamation in the press on various topics that they view as “contentious”, namely “family reunification” and the “release of the arrested Zionists”.

Unlike the previous period these issues were raised with less intensity, also a result of the specifications made by M.F.A.

The Israeli media’s tendency to these issues during this period was characterized by maintaining, however, an hostility attitude shown by publishing various “news”, especially in Vienna, such as “they announced” that a large number of Jews will come shortly from the P.R.R. or that “all Zionists were released from the P.R.R. prisons and they are expected to come to Israel”, etc., so that other newspapers refute this news as unsubstantiated.

The sole purpose of this type of “dispute” between some newspapers was to maintain a tense atmosphere and also to put pressure on our country, even masked as a “request” sometimes, or as acts of clemency, humanitarian done acts by our state for “family reunification”.

They also tried to press using memos. During the Geneva Conference of the leaders of the four Great Powers memos were written at the initiative of the H.O.R. and sent to the diplomatic offices of these countries so they would be forwarded to Geneva in order to be addressed by the four. Following discussions, the Soviet Embassy did not submit this memo anywhere, and the French Embassy sent it to the French M.F.A. without supporting it as I am being told by that Chargé d’affaires.

1) Alexander Nikitich Abramov (1905-1988), Soviet diplomat. Employee of the M.F.A. since 1944; extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Helsinki (1946-1948). Ambassador in Tel Aviv (1953-1958), afterwards in Cambodia (1959-1962) and Laos (1960-1962), in Alger (1962-1964) and Cotonou (Dahomey, since 1966).

86

Also under the patronage of the H.O.R. (the Organization of Jews born in Romania) was organized in October, the so-called “Romanian Aliyah week”. The objectives set by the respective organizers were to “solve” certain domestic problems, but they also had the purpose of making a fuss over the same problems from far away and on the other hand to unify all natives from the P.R.R. in a strong organization. The radio shows in Romanian, which this “week” supported the H.O.R. demands referring to “broken families” and the “arrested Zionists” are proof that the local authorities pursued this goal. The organizers had the full support of the state organizations, and yet they haven’t reached their goal.

Most of the meetings organized by the H.O.R., where it was discussed about “beginning the Aliyah in the P.R.R.” and the issue of the “Zionist prisoners”, had little attendance. That happened because the organizers were aiming on this occasion at the opportunity of creating a situation for themselves to become the actual leaders of all the emigrants from the P.R.R. The disagreements between them, who call themselves leaders of those native from Romania, were fully presented in the press. The press has generally supported this action but there were bourgeois newspapers that described H.O.R.’s action as a lie. They showed that the purpose of this unquietness is not “the issue of Aliyah, but to create a ground favourable for some people who wanted to become Members in the Parliament”.

The organization of this “week” also aimed at counteracting the activity of the Israel-P.R.R. Friendship League and, perhaps, as a more distant goal, to completely annihilate its activity due to a single organization of the natives of from the P.R.R. that they wanted to create. Moreover, “Adevărul” [The Truth] newspaper was demanding in their issue from November 18, 1955, through an article they had published, “either the liquidation of the Israel-P.R.R. Friendship League” (which they described it as a Communist tool) or to “the foundation based on reciprocity of such a league in the P.R.R.”. The other papers haven’t taken nor commented on this article, as they usually do.

During the period covered by the report, the above mentioned issues have not been officially released to our legation by the Israeli authorities. Both Sharett, as well as other officers of the M.F.A., during the first discussions with the Head of the Office, when he first arrived while, only mentioned that “about our problems (they were referring to families and Zionists) we will have the opportunity to discuss on other occasion.”

If we were to review the total number of citizens who arrived in Israel during the past four months from different European countries of the socialist camp, and mainly the Soviet Union, against which a campaign was lead regarding this matter similar to the one against us, we would determine that their number is very low. Thus, 23 people arrived from the P.R. of Hungary, 15 from the U.R.S.S., 14 from the P.R. of Bulgaria and 5 from Czechoslovakia, while from our country approximately 25 people entered Israel.

The figures shown are approximate. It is possible that more people came from each country, but in any case these figures reflect clearly that there were not more people coming from these countries in comparison to the number of people coming from our country.

But in terms of departures from Israel to the above mentioned countries, the issue is completely different from here. Thus, according to the information we have, the Polish P.R. does not receive those departed, although there are applications; P.R. of Bulgaria and P.R. of Hungary grant approvals in very special cases, but none of them is paid transportation or other expenses.

However, since the situation regarding our country is not similar to the one shown for the countries above mentioned, we believe that we will have to step up the action on sending into the country a greater number of people because this way we counteract the Israeli authorities’ actions. This proposal is based on the fact that according to our findings repatriations are regarded as important by the Israeli government, because an increase in the number of repatriations creates unfavourable grounds for the emigration of the Jews from the

87

P.R.R. Moreover, they use not only the media or the agencies drafting the letters which are then forwarded to the legation or sent our authorities, in which demand for the relatives of those in question to come to Israel, they also cause all sorts of problems to the citizens who received the approval to return to the P.R.R., from direct threats to practical measures of constraint, such as: dismissal and removal from their homes, increasing their taxes, promises, blackmail.

As it is known, in the field of economic relations there is a trade agreement between both countries. The provisions of this agreement were complied with in a percentage of made at a rate of... * by our side and of ... * by the Israeli part. The delivery to Israel of a larger quantity of goods, provided in the agreement, by the P.R.R. is due to the fact that a series of products that were to be imported by the Romanian part on the Israeli market and they were more expensive than on the international market and they were purchased from another market.

On various occasions some people, for example like Bentov, the Minister of Development, Bartur the Director of the Economic Division within the M.F.A., Kaplan, director within the Ministry of Industry and Trade, have raised the issue of delivery by us of certain petroleum products that Israel needed, transaction that has not yet been perfected, although there have been discussions in this sense between the delegations of both countries who met in October in Geneva.

Besides wood, paper etc., books in Romanian, newspapers, magazines are in demand on the Israeli market. Therefore, our attention will have to focus in this direction, because through these deliveries we will be able to reach first of all the political side of popularization and knowledge of literature, science and technology in our country. We will also have to follow the possibility of marketing our movies that are as demanded as the books.

From Israel we imported mainly citrus, false teeth, razor blades and through transit we imported wool which we needed.

From what I’ve told you its results that the only area where relations between the two countries are better is represented by the economic relations. This may also reflect by the M.C.E. sending two comrades, with the purpose of establishing an economic agency attached to our legation.

Regarding Israel’s the negative attitude towards in international general issues, in which our country was interested, such as the acceptance in the U.N. of the 16 countries, including the P.R.R., regarding to Israel’s attitude in its relations with the socialist camp countries, an improvement of our relations is closely related to the change of Israel’s policy of dependence on the Western countries, and primarily the U.S.A., which is unlikely at this time.

Therefore, our position on the issues raised by them should be firmer, namely on the proposals for emigration.

In terms of economic issues, we must study them better and find new possibilities for export, which would bring us first of all political gain. [...]


* The figure is missing in the text – our ref.

88

55

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GHEORGHE CHITIC, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, WITH

GOLDA MEIR, THE NEW MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATI ONS

July [4], 1956, Tel Aviv

As you know, I requested following the changes in the Israeli M.F.A. leadership to pay a visit to the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, Golda Meyersohn, who received me on June 4th [actually July 4th – our ref.] 1956, also being present Eshel, Director of Relations within the Ministry.

To my words of congratulations, she responded by thanking me for visiting her, appreciating my efforts, and then she added that she hoped that for the relations between Israel and our country to improve. Further, she said that, in general, Israel’s policy is oriented on the “line of peace and cooperation”.

To her words of it, I replied that I like the perspectives that she sees in the future relations between our countries.

We had an exchange of words with no importance, then she brought the discussion back on the relations between our countries, showing that they are very happy about the measures taken by our government regarding the release of the people arrested and the permission [granted] to some of them to go to Israel.

In carefully expressed words she presented the situation of many families separated for a long time, part of them being in Israel and the other part in the P.R.R. It said that she was raising this issue not as a political matter (she returned several times to this issue), but as a matter of humanity. She also said that she did not understand the reasons why our government does not solve these cases, when husband and wife are separated many times, or parents separated from their little children, and many more such cases.

My answer was that I didn’t believe that she [didn’t] know the position of the P.R.R. government with regard to this issue, communicated last year to the Israeli representative in Bucharest on the occasion of a discussion at the M.F.A. I also mentioned that some citizens born in our country leave Israel to go to the P.R.R., and others obtain their exit visa and they come to Israel.

Since during the discussions she also referred to our successes in the field of economic development, I also mentioned a few solid examples in this sense. Thus, I changed the topic of the discussion. Making a comparison between the situations in Palestine 45 years ago, when she came for the first time, when there weren’t any trees, and the situation today, many radical changes have occurred, the situation improving greatly. She explained other things as well (that she lived for many years in America etc.), but it doesn’t matter.

During these discussions I used a proper time, getting up and thanking her for the interesting things she told me and therewith, wishing her success in her work, the visit ended.

The visit lasted 20 minutes.

AMFA, Israel matter. Problem 220/1956, unpaged

89

56

FROM THE GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER – 1956 REGARDING

THE ISRAELI-ROMANIAN RELATIONS

No. 1 500 [December]* 1956, Tel Aviv Top secret [...] During the period covered by the report, the relations between Israel and the P.R.R.

were somewhat different from the previous period. This relative difference from the past was mainly due to the fact that this period there was, in general, a different situation, when we experienced a certain degree of unwinding in the relations between the states based on the principles of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems, which had, or so it seemed, a certain influence in Israel as well.

Starting with April several officials from the Israeli M.F.A. began to discuss more about “intent” of the Israeli Government to undertake various actions that would lead to improving relations with the socialist countries. Thus, they were saying that through those actions Israel will appoint ministers to replace the chargés d’affaires for all of Israel’s diplomatic offices in the countries with people’s democracy.

Also, directly or through different people, it was raised the question of inviting in Israel some sports teams, artistic groups, scientists, etc. from these countries. At the same time more and more people, like journalists, musicians etc., were asking directly or through other channels to visit the socialist countries. Various other persons dealing with economic problems were raising, on many occasions, the issue of developing the economic relations. When mentioning such issues they were also referring to our country.

If at first these actions seemed to be intentions of the Israeli government to improve relations with the socialist countries, primarily to escape the political isolation in the international arena that Israel was in, they proved to be merely unsuccessful attempts to somehow blackmail the U.S. which was stalling the delivery of weapons and signing a military pact with Israel, as well as to draw the attention away from the aggressive measures they were preparing against the Arab countries.

However, along with the entire tendency to improve the tense relations with the socialist countries, they continued the attacks in the press, on radio or through the speeches of various officials against of all countries of people’s democracy and especially against the Soviet Union.

The Israeli government had a similar attitude towards our country. On the one hand they were talking about strengthening relations, and on the other hand they continued the attacks on various topics, and mainly on old themes of “family reunification” and “release of the arrested Zionists”.

In relation to these attacks, there was a leaflet, in January, in Romanian called The arrest and release of the Zionist leaders in the P.R.R., written by Kohavy-Stern, one of the initiators of the “hunger strike” organized previously against our country in relation to the same issue. For that matter, this leaflet represented for the months to come a base for the slanders against our country, meaning that although they were not referring specifically what was written in the leaflet, the newspapers were discussing the same issues on the same tone.

The Israeli reactionary press, drawing inspiration from the news published in the West by the Legionaries who had fled our country, was often reproducing these nonsense slanders

* The report was filed with great delay – our ref.

90

babbled against the P.R.R. Another practice used by it was publishing in big headlines, on several columns, some news from “reliable sources” according to which a new group of Zionist was arrested in the P.R.R. or that they found out, also from “reliable sources”, about the release from the Romanian prisons of the “sentenced Zionists” or that, soon, a large group of immigrants from the P.R.R. will arrive in Israel etc., etc., and then, 2-3 days later they would have again with big headlines comments saying that the news was not true, but the P.R.R. government would have to make a gesture of humanity in order to solve these problems.

The purpose of these “news” and then “retractions” was to keep the public’s attention “on its toes”, on the one hand, and on the other hand to pressure this way the Romanian authorities, as it was often emphasized in the press that the Israeli government should.

The Israeli authorities, not being too happy about the monthly departures from Israel to the P.R.R. of relatively large groups of repatriates, the number of which has increased since last year, in comparison to the departures to other countries, have turned this matter as well into a means of attacks against our country. They were doing the same thing on the arrival in Israel of those emigrating from our country.

The World Zionist Congress, which took place within this period, represented a new opportunity to raise these issues. Moreover, the Congress dedicated a separate decision to this problem in requesting that the Romanian government “releases immediately the last to Assyria (?) Sion” or the “Congress points to the Romanian government the serious problem of thousands of Jewish families that were separated with the cessation of the Aliyah and declares that they consider family unification, by allowing Aliyah, a supreme humanitarian obligation”.

Towards the end of the period covered by the report and about the time when the Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs went on a visit in the socialist countries, those problems were blamed on the need to improve the relations between Israel and P.R.R., outlining the fact that “the Israeli public opinion is expecting a gesture of humanity from the Romanian government”, that could lead to the “reunification of the broken families”.

In regard to this issue, as I said at the beginning of the year, in the future we will have to intensify the work for sending back in the country as many repatriated as possible, because as I presumed, by increasing the number of approvals and thus increasing the number of departures, we will be the ones in a favourable situation.

Often the media, and especially the one in Romanian, was drawing attention through various articles on departure to our country. While first the press was announcing the departure of each group, later they stopped publishing such news, probably considering it unfavourable to the position of the Israeli authorities.

The matter of strengthening relations with our country through the exchange of ministers was raised during the same period, at the same time with raising the problem in relation to the other socialist countries. This issue was first raised by Eshel, Relations director within the M.F.A., in April, in a discussion with comrade Chitic, and in May Sharett (former Minister of Foreign Affairs), was talking about it. On this occasion, she said that they were looking for the right person to be appointed Minister of Israel in Bucharest.

By appointing a Minister in Bucharest the Israeli government is seeking to allow the number of emigrants from the P.R.R. to increase because, in their opinion, the number of those coming is too small.

Also during this period took place some sort of exchange of scientists: in April Professor Simionescu attended, as a delegate of the P.R.R. Academy, the international symposium on macro-molecular chemistry in Israel, and later on Israeli professor Dov Tamari, professor at the Polytechnic Institute in Haifa, attended the Congress of the Mathematicians in the P.R.R.

91

In terms of economic relations, they developed as you known based on the old trade agreement, some of its provisions being extended following the discussions had in Geneva by an Israeli economic delegation with our delegation.

Just like before, the Israelis have raised many times the issue of us selling petroleum products, which because of the prices, no agreement was reached, the matter remaining suspensive. It was also raised several times the issue of solving the disagreements arising as a result of the delivery by some Romanian companies of some quantities of poor quality. As far as we know they are entitled and therefore they were told that the problem will be discussed and resolved in favour of both parties.

From Israel we import in particular antibiotic products, coffee and cocoa. By comparison, the economic relations between Israel and our country were somewhat

better than the political ones, the latter starting to improve slowly during the first half of the year.

Some officials and sometimes even the press, have use more flexible terms in connection with the issue of family reunification, instead of the more emphatic terms used in the past in the same issue.

Israel was interested in improving relations with our country, as well as with other socialist countries, in order to create a platform that would make them seem like “peaceful people”, but in fact, as proved later, it was merely a tactic for achieving their aggressive goals [...]

(Ss) Gh. Chitic

Chargé d’affaires a.i.


57

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CAIUS FRÂN ŢESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF

ROMANIA, WITH ARIEH HARELL, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

IN BUCHAREST

April 2, 1957, Bucharest, 13.30 h

Arieh Harell 1), the new minister of Israel in the Popular Republic of Romania, accompanied by Elkana Margalit, chargé d’affaires ad interim of Israel, at comrade Caius Frânţescu, director ad interim of the Protocol.

Comrade Pilu, from II Relationships Division assisted. A. Harell made a protocol introduction visit.

1) Arieh Harell, Israeli diplomat. Born in Kiev in 1911, he studies medicine at Realprogymnasium6 in Danzig and at “Friedrich Wilhelm” University from Berlin. In 1937 he got his doctorate in medicine, and settled in Palestine during the same year. Between 1942-1945 he served in the British Army Medical Corps as captain. Appointed liaison officer with the rank of major between the Israeli army and International Red Cross, in 1950 he was appointed head of the Medical Department with the rank of Lieutenant - Colonel within the Army’s General Surgery Office. One year later he became a member of the Medical School of Cornell University from U.S.A. Since 1953 he held the position of head of “Endocrinology Unit” at the State Hospital. Envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary minister of Israel in Bucharest (1956-1958). AMFA, founds 10/Foreign representatives. Israel, f. H-37, unpaged.

92

On this occasion he got interested on the local usages as concerns the submission of accreditation letters and protocol visits. He presented the copy of his speech.

I explained such usages. A. Harell pointed out that before coming to Bucharest, he passed through Athens,

Vienna, Budapest, where he had the occasion to meet our heads of mission, who were very gentle with him; he expressed his gratitude, asking me to send them his compliments and thanks.

He asked me to obtain an introduction audience at comrade minister Grigore Preoteasa, as soon as he returns.

He got interested if the ceremony at the Presidium will be delayed after the visit at the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I answered that establishing such an audience depends of the President’s health [Dr. Petru Groza – our ref.]

A. Harell speaks French and Russian languages very fluently. His biography results into the fact that he studied in Berlin and that during the Second

World War he served in the English army having the rank of doctor captain, therefore he probably also speaks German and English languages.


58

NOTE OF CAIUS FRÂNŢESCU, DIRECTOR A.I. OF THE PROTOCOL DEPARTMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF

ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ACCREDITATION OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF ISRA EL

IN BUCHAREST

April 2, 1957, Bucharest

On April 2, 1957, the new minister of Israel in the Popular Republic of Romania, Arieh Harell, made me a protocol visit. We discussed on issues concerning the submission of accreditation letters. The discussions result into the fact that he does not have recall letters for his predecessor.

After studying the situation, I ascertained the following: No recall letters have been submitted for Ehud Avriel, who was the minister of Israel

in Bucharest between June 26, 1950 and March 22, 1951, nor for Zeev Argaman, who was Chargé d’affaires between March 30, 1954 and March 1, 1956 [underlined in text – our ref.]. There are verbal notes of the legation in both their cases, notifying the M.F.A. on their recall. Therefore, by means of a Verbal Note of March 13, 1951, Israel Legation notifies the M.F.A. that Ehud Avriel, being recalled by his government, will leave the P.R.R. soon, and by means of a Verbal Note of March 2, 1956 the Legation of the State of Israel notified the M.F.A. that Zeev Argaman, being called, left the P.R.R. on March 1, 1956.

From diplomatic law point of view, a mission does not end unless at its notification to the Head of State, by recalling letters, regarding the cessation of the mission. The recalling letters are those that impose a lawful term to the diplomatic mission, in case of a permanent mission.

However, there are cases when the validity of an accreditation letter silently expires, as, for example, in case of ending the temporary mission, in case of death of the accrediting Head of State, or of the Head of State near which a head of mission was accredited, or in case of

93

“political death” of one or another, or, at least, in case of change of rank of the head of mission.

In this case, I consider that the validity of the accreditation letters both of Ehud Avriel, and of Zeev Argaman, may be considered expired even if there are no recall letters in either cases due to the following reasons:

a) From Ehud Avriel to Zeev Argaman there is a rank, class decrease, of the head of mission, regardless of the fact that this change of rank did not influence the same person.

b) From Zeev Argaman to Arieh Harell there is the same change of rank, this time up. c) There are verbal notes which, even if they do not have the power to give a lawful

term to a diplomatic mission, they officially notify the recall of the two heads of mission, predecessors of Arieh Harell.

For these reasons, please approve my communication to Arieh Harell on the fact that we consider the validity of the accreditation letters of the two predecessors as expired, for the above mentioned reasons, not being necessary to send other recall letters.

Please approve this for one more reason: If we did not consider the validity of the accreditation letters of Ehud Avriel and of Zeev

Argaman expired, for which of them should we claim recall letters?


59


ROMANIA, WITH ELKANA MARGALIT, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A. I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST

April 29, 1957, Bucharest, 14 h

Elkana Margalit 1), chargé d’affaires ad interim of Israel, at comrade Caius Frânţescu,

director ad interim of the Protocol. Comrade Pilu, from IInd R.D. assisted. 1. Elkana Margalit thanked for the support granted to the new minister of Israel at

occupying his position. 2. She pointed out that the new minister of Israel saw the play The Journal of Anna

Franck judged on the stage of the Jew State Theatre. This play deeply impressed him. The subject of the play is touching. However, for the minister of Israel the play is

touching because of family reasons. A sister of Mrs. Harell and her daughter died in a Nazi bearing, as the play The Journal of Anna Franck was about.

The minister of Israel wishes to purchase an entire show in order to invite all the members of the Diplomatic Corps and the Romanian officials.

With this purpose Elkana Margalit asked me to communicate the terms in which a show may be held for the minister of Israel, and when.

She asked for an answer in due time, as the minister of Israel must make the necessary preparations in order to invite the Diplomatic Corps, to print the program, translate the content of the play etc.

1) Elkana Margalit (b. 1913), Israeli diplomat, Chargé d’affaires a.i. in Bucharest (Apr. 1955-Jun. 1957). His wife was born in 1914 in Romania.

94

I answered that I will keep in touch with the Ministry of Education and Culture in order to find out the terms of such a show from the Jew State Theatre.


60


ROMANIA, WITH ELKANA MARGALIT, FIRST SECRETARY OF THE ISRAELI LEGATION IN BUCHAREST

May 20, 1957, Bucharest, 15 h

Elkana Margalit, First secretary of Israel Legation, to comrade Caius Frânţescu,

director ad interim of the Protocol. Comrade Pilu, from IInd R.D. assisted. Elkana Margalit raised two problems: 1. She requested that the minister of Israel should be received in audience by comrade

Teodor Rudenco, tomorrow May 21, between 9-11.30 hours, or after 14.00, or the day after tomorrow until 10 o’clock or in the afternoon at 13 o’clock. She underlined that the audience is urgent, having as object the complaint Syria makes against Israel, to be discussed during the Security Council’s Meeting of May 23, current year1). The minister of Israel wishes to present comrade Rudenco the Israeli point of view on this matter. Elkana Margalit explained that it is about a bridge Israel has built in Hule area for transportation of papers.

2. Referring to the presentation audiences required by the minister of Israel, Elkana Margalit pointed out that the minister Arieh Harell is amazed that such audiences never took place until now and asks if requesting them is a protocol mistake, in which case he apologizes, or is something else.

She said that she understands that the members of the government are very busy, but she underlined that some of these visits, for example the visit at the Ministry of Commerce, were requested also with the purpose of discussing economic issued, therefore important issues.

Other visits were required on professional or social interests, for example the visit at C.I. Parhon and Chief Rabbi. None of these visits took place.

I answered at the first point that I will send comrade Rudenco Israel minister’s audience request and that we will answer as soon as the audience is established.

At the second problem I answered that this was not a protocol mistake, because, as I explained to the minister of Israel at his arrival in the Popular Republic of Romania, a head of mission may ask Romanian state’s authorities for presentation audiences, which are not compulsory. The establishment of such audiences is sometimes delayed due to the fact that the concerned persons are very busy.

I also said that I will get interested in these audiences and that we will inform the Legation in case they have been established.


1) Reference to the incident from Apr. 24, 1957, when an Israeli military plane violated the Egyptian airspace, flying over Gaza Strip. Egypt and Syria protested strongly against this action determined as “challenging”. See “Scânteia”, Year XXVI, no. 3892, April 27, 1957.

95

61

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATI ON IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REINTEGRATION OF THE JEWISH FAMILIES

No. 17 [August12], 1957, Tel Aviv On August 9, I received in audience Kohen Jean, Korn Z. and Foca Hirsch, members of

the Presidium “Superior Council of the Association of Romanian Aliyah in Israel”. The purpose of the audience was related to the problem “separated families”.

Each of the three members of the Presidium spoke at large about the Aliyah issue, of arrested Zionists and of “separated families”. Related to the arrested Zionists, they said that out of the 180 arrested Zionists all were released except for one, that their liberation was a deed of great “political wisdom” of the government and that this raised country’s prestige in front of the occidental world. Then they spoke of emigration and last about “family reunification”. As concerns the last matter, they said that there are tragic cases in which the elders are at the end of their lives and no source of income and die before seeing their sons. According to their data, 54% of the elders in Israel asylums are from P.R.R. There are cases, such as the one of an old woman with blood hypertension losing her sight very fast. The woman waits for her son who, if he will be delayed, at his arrival in Israel, would find his mother unable to see him as she has gone blind. They also gave examples. They stated that they are loyal to the country in which they were born, at which they often think and that they regret more that only P.R.R. from all socialist countries has not solved this tragic problem for them. Kohen said that at his arrival in Israel, a party was organized for him, and that he made loyalty statements towards P.R.R. and he refused the American and English journalists requesting hostile statements at P.R.R. address.

The discussion on such themes took a lot, and at the end, among others, he told me that if P.R.R. shall solve the “family reunification” issue, P.R.R. shall have a devoted friend in the Romanian community in this country. I answered the same as I answered Golda Meir. As concerns the Aliyah I did not want to discuss because the audience request included only the separated families issue. I evidenced the fact that we agree with solving the family issues, that this is a humanitarian matter and that socialism is humanitarian in its essence. As proof of the solving is the fact that almost each week Olims come from P.R.R. who stated that they are satisfied with the rhythm the problem and the most tragic cases are solved, such as the ones of old people deprived of their sons and others. They requested me to allow them to present me a list of the most “tragic” cases which require an urgent solving. I agreed to receive the list and communicate it to the M.F.A. in Bucharest. Then they told me that a “delegation of mothers” and the “Committee for family reunification” wish to request my audience and asked me to receive them. I answered that I am ready to listen to them at any time. They thanked me for my kindness.

The audience took place in a calm atmosphere, the delegates being satisfied with the reception and with the understanding of their issue on “separated families”.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu1) AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1957, unpaged.

1) Petru Manu (b. 1912), Romanian medic, professor and diplomat. Graduate of the Faculty of Medicine from Cluj (1940), teacher at the Medical-Pharmaceutical Institute from Iasi (since 1948); adviser and Secretary General within the Ministry of Religious Affairs, employed of the M.F.A. since 1956. Extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Tel Aviv (1957-1961), in Stockholm and Copenhagen (since 1961) and Oslo (1962), residing in Stockholm; afterwards, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Stockholm since 1964.

96

62

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATI ON IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA

CONCERNING THE REINTEGRATION OF THE JEWISH FAMILIES

No. 18 [August 12] 1957, Tel Aviv Today, August 12, I received Mr. Jean Kohen [Cohen], member of the Presidium

“Superior Council of the associations of Romanian Aliyah in Israel”, who visited me in relation to the list he is to draft of “separated families” and to the memoir related to Stuttgart trial. Jean Kohen is part of “Sohnut”, being member of the office for external relationships of this organization.

After saying that they will draft a list of the most urgent cases, He continued by saying: -“You came to Israel on a moment when spirits are highly irritated due to the fact that

we interfered in different ways, being promised the solving, but until now all we have are promises. Therefore, we intervened in Washington, with Mr. Brucan 1), who made us a promise. Then promises were also made to rabbi Siebelman in Sweden, who visited P.R.R. and who intervened in the problem of «family reunification». Due to this, the spirits are very agitated today”.

He reminded me of the “despair caravan”, presented at the World Jewish Congress. - “I can say that the «Committee for family reunification» decided two months ago to go

on a hunger as protest against P.R.R. Due to our insistences, this protest was postponed”. I answered him that it would be better if the world would understand that such issues

cannot be solved by “forced” methods. It is wrong to consider that by means of injuries and threatens at P.R.R. address things

will go better. We are solving every day “family reunification” cases due to our humanitarian understanding of the issue.

He said that in 1946 he discussed the Jew issue with comrade Gheorghiu-Dej, by means of comrade Zeigher. He says that at that time he stated that Filderman, in collaboration with Maniu2), planned to sabotage our national economy.

“We, the Zionists – he said – did not agree with Filderman, because we realized that our problem cannot be solved as Filderman believes. We stated then that we are ready to serve the “revolutionary government” if it supports us in solving our issue. We asked permission to participate to the International Zionist Congress in Basel in order to present the Jewish problem in Romania. Even if this was approved due to small reasons, we did not participate. They told me that at that moment comrade Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej stated that they can do a lot for Romania in the economic field. Today I would like to resume the discussion interrupted 9 years ago and state that if we were sure that this “reunification” issue would be solved, for our personal relief, we could take measures so that Romania no longer be attacked, but create a calm atmosphere. We wish to speak only the best about our country we left and to

1) Silviu Brucan (1916-2006), Romanian politician, political scientist and diplomat. Member of the R.C.P. when forced underground (1936), editor at “Scânteia” newspaper (1945-1951), specialization in Moscow, extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Washington (1956-1959), permanent representative to the U.N. (1959-1961), head of Romanian Television (1962-1966), afterwards teacher at the “Ştefan Gheorghiu” Academy (until 1978). See also autobiographic vol., From capitalism to socialism and back. A biography between two revolutions, published by Nemira Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998. 2) Iuliu Maniu (1873-1953), Romanian politician. Leader of the Romanian National Party (1919-1926). Leader of the National Peasants’ Party (1926-1933; 1937-1947). Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1928-1930; 1930; 1932-1933). On Nov. 11, 1947 Iuliu Maniu sentenced them to life imprisonment in a hard labour prison, turned into hard labour and civic degradation, for 10 years. He died on Feb. 5, 1953 in Sighet prison.

97

which we are related by our childhood. You must help us in this respect. We can support Romania in the economic field, especially as concerns the merchandise subject to embargo. If necessary, we can even proceed to «contraband» with such merchandise. We have sufficient relationships in this respect”.

He informed me that soon enough a world organization of Romanian Jews will be created, their position increasing a lot. I answered that we are open to the reunification issue and for solving the spiniest issues they have, which they are bothered by, and that we wish to solve them first, and to be presented a list of all such cases.

We considered that this way we can put an end, in a certain measure, to exaggerated claims of 15-16,000 families.

As concerns Ben Gurion’s statements that “Israel’s peace” depends on the Aliyah, I said that there might be other ways of obtaining “Israel’s peace”.

He answered that they do not agree with Ben Gurion, that he speaks too eager, that he sees things from local situation’s point of view, not through the European and global relationships. Due to this he, Kohen agrees with Nahum Goldman’s opinion, having worked with him for many years and having different opinions.

Nahum Goldman sees Israel’s position at European and global level and considers that in order to solve Israel's issue, two things are necessary: creating a good relationship with Eastern Europe, including U.S.S.R., and peace with the Arabians.

Ben Gurion seems to have another opinion. I told him that, even if I consider that Israel has many more opinions on Israel's external policy, however, unfortunately the “only voice” heard in Israel is of Ben Gurion.

We, who are here, are familiar with Israel, according to what Ben Gurion does and says. There are no other voices to be heard.

He answered that they (the Romanians) can do nothing for the time being, as they have no moral authority in front of the other Romanian Jews, due to the disjointed families they cannot unite. Help us and you will see what we can do in this respect. He referred to P.R.R. popularization and to the political actions as Nahum Goldman sees them, whose partisan he is.

The discussion lasted for 25-30 minute and while leaving, he asked me to receive him again. I promised I will receive him and that we will be able to discuss in detail certain political issues of Israel.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


98

63

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATI ON IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF RABBI OF SEFAR D CULT

FROM ISRAEL AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATI ONS

No. 21 [14 August], 1957, Tel Aviv On August 14, accompanied by Mrs. Kadar from the Israeli M.F.A. as translator, I made

a protocol visit to Rabbi Nissim1), Prime-rabbi of Sefard rite. The prime-rabbi is not familiar with any foreign language, speaking only Hebrew and, probably, Arabian.

As introduction, I said I am pleased to know him and that I thank him for the offered possibility to visit him. I asked him if he was born in Israel or came from elsewhere. He said that he came from Baghdad in 1933.

We then continued the discussion asking him if he has any information on P.R.R. cults' issue, generally, and especially on Mosaic cult. In our country religious cults enjoy freedom in exercising their functions. The state offers subsidies for theological higher education schools etc.

In P.R.R. Mosaic cult has two Talmud-Torah schools, and schools teaching in Yiddish language; they receive subsidies from the state; synagogues are opened, the state giving them flour for the matzos; they have ritual locations etc. etc.

He told me that if “we, the communists, had not been against religion, we would have conquered the world” , I answered that we agree with religious freedom, and what is rumored about us in this matter by our enemies is defame. It is true that we, the communists, have a material belief on the world, but this does not mean that the state forbids different cults to exercise their activity and that the citizens that have another conception on the world are persecuted by the state.

In our country, different from other countries such as the USA, church is not isolated from the state. We, unlike other capitalist states, grant subsidies to cults, pay theology teachers etc.

He asked me “if and how Mosaic cult receives subsidies and if the people believe and go to church. Probably today, in P.R.R. there are no more believers who do not go to synagogue anymore” . In our country [I answered] in P.R.R. who wants to go to the church or the synagogue is free to go, nobody stops them.

The Rabbi continued telling me that a year or two ago, from all the countries, they sent religious books in U.S.S.R. which returned with the mention that they do not need them, as the cult has sufficient books. We know, he says, that in U.S.S.R. are only 2,000 books and no possibility of printing them. Is this religious freedom?

I answered him that for U.S.S.R.’s actions, if he wants any explanations, he could obtain them from comrade Abramov. I was there as representative of P.R.R. and I cannot answer unless for what we are doing, not for what the Russians do.

He asked me if he can send holy books to P.R.R. in this respect, and I answered that we must see first if Mosaic believers in P.R.R. need such books, and that he must address to the Prime-rabbi Rosen Moses2), the only one able to answer to such a question.

1) Isaac Nissim (1895-1981), Chief Rabbi of Israel (1948-1955), elected chairman of the Supreme Rabbinical Council. 2) Dr. Moses Rosen (1912-1992), Rabbi (1938) and Chief Rabbi of the mosaic worship from Romania (1948-1992), member of the World Jewish Congress. See his vol. Dangers, Tests and Miracles: The Remarkable Life Story of Chief Rabbi Rosen of Romania published by Hasefer Publishing House, Bucharest, 1990.

99

“We – says Rabbi Nissim – will have the following year a conference with all rabbi chiefs in the world and we would like to invite Rosen, too. Can you help us in this matter?” I answered that, in this case, the procedure is to send the invitation by means of the M.F.A.[Israeli – our ref.] to M.F.A. in P.R.R., by means of the Israeli minister in Bucharest. “We would like to give it to you in order to send it to Bucharest” . “If you insist, I can do this favor for you” [I said].

He also asked me if he can visit P.R.R., if he can obtain the entry visa and if I could help him. I answered that in this case someone must invite him and then, in order to obtain the necessary documents, he must appeal to Israeli M.F.A.

He asked me where I was living in Israel, and I said that in Ramat-Gan. Why don’t I move to Jerusalem? I told him that this is not so simple. As it is known, the U.N. made a resolution according to which Jerusalem is considered international town, as well as a couple of localities in the area. After the war of 19483), this U.N.4) Resolution was not observed by Israel.

Therefore, the states represented in Israel do not admit Jerusalem as capital. - I see that you are familiar with the imperialists in this matter, the rabbi said. - We, as U.N.’s loyal members, observe its decisions, I answered. - As far as I know, the rabbi continued, no resolution has been made, Jerusalem’s

internationalization was discussed. - The important matter, I said, discussed nowadays, is not if we want to live in

Jerusalem or not, but is a resolution has been voted or not. The important and current issue is how an existing situation must be solved if it generates international disputes, and which is not comfortable for Israel either.

How the Prime-rabbi proposes to solve this issue? Which are the practical ways in this respect?

The great Rabbi answered that in the New Jerusalem there are no “holy places”, they are all in the Old Jerusalem. When Jerusalem’s internationalization was discussed, it was discussed because of the Holy Places. During the British mandate, there were no Jordanians in Jerusalem. Therefore he considers that Old Jerusalem and surrounding localities’ internationalization can be done.

- Fine, but do you think that Jordanians will accept this? - They must accept, because they are not right. They were never in Jerusalem. - I think you should think at solutions acceptable for both parties, I continued. I asked then how he sees the solving of the Arabian refugees’ issue. He answered that

there are no Arabian refugees. Those who were in Lebanon and Syria settled in those countries. Many of them have important positions in the state, even ministers and if they left

3) The proclamation of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948 was at the same time, the moment when open hostilities started between the new state and its Arab neighbours. The relations between Israel, on one hand, and Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, on the other hand, turned into a permanent conflict. Preoccupied to stop the U.N. Resolution for creating the State of Israel, the members of the Arab League, assembled in Damascus, have decided on the “march” of the Arab armies in Palestine and to enter on May 15, 1948 (the proclamation date of the State of Israel), its territory, starting the first Arab-Israeli war. On November 16, 1948, the Security Council requested the parties to the conflict to call a truce, count Bernadotte being appointed U.N. mediator in Palestine. Following the bilateral armistice agreements signed on the isle of Rhodes, in February-July 1949, the territory destined for establishing the Palestinian Arab state was divided between the belligerents: 6,800 km2 were given to Israel and 4,300 km2 to Jordan (Cisjordan). The surface of Gaza sector – 2,000 km2 came under Egyptian administration, following a U.N. Resolution. See “Lumea”, no. 52, December 20, 1973, pp. 8-9. 4) After the Arab-Israeli War (1948-1949), the Armistice Commission decided to divide Jerusalem between Israel and Jordan. The old city, where were the “holy places” was administered by Jordan. The new city, whose first constructions date from 1860, was given to Israel. In 1967, after the six-day war, Israel occupied the old city held until then by the Arabs. See “Lumea”, no. 52, December 20, 1973, pp. 30.

100

Israel, should they be considered refugees? We accept those from Gaza, only if they render it to us for administration.

I reminded him that there is an U.N. committee for helping the refugees5) whose budget for this year rises to 60 million dollars. How do you explain this U.N. budget if there are no refugees? He could not answer this, but he continued saying that even if there are any refugees, they should be located in different Arabian states. 15,000 Jews came from Iraq, around 100,000 from Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and 105,000 from Morocco, 20,000 from Egypt etc. The solution is that Arabians should be installed in the dwellings the Jews used to have in these countries and I can tell you that in Iraq Jews had beautiful dwellings. Then, between Damascus and Baghdad is a valley with a river, and the land around it is deserted. This region can be populated with Arabians. I answered that, as far as I know, from U.N.’s discussions in the autumn, Arabians would not Accept their installation in another country.

Arabians sustain that Palestine is Arabian country6), and they would never give it up. However, I said, there must be found a solution to be accepted by both parties. Which is your point of view?

- I have no other solution. We are on this Earth for 3,000 years. Arabians are wrong and they should accept it. You, the communists, sustain Arabians right now. They will double-cross you too. I know them better. They cannot be trusted; they are seeking to take advantage from everybody. They will take advantage of you, too and when you will no longer serve their purposes, they will leave you. I told him that they cannot double-cross us, because we are not looking for economic profits, like others. Our external political relationships are based on other principles. We wish to have relationships with the Arabians and other states based on the principle of equality of economic exchanges in mutual advantage. Our supreme purpose is a good understanding and peace between peoples, for everybody’s happiness. I consider that life on Earth is short and we must do everything to be happy.

He then asked why our economic relationships are no longer developed. In the past, he said, we received from Romania beef, poultry which were very good.

I answered that we still have economic relationships and as concerns the cattle, I can give him no precise answer.

P.S. I typed the discussion at large, in order to inform you on the “conception” a chief of cults has on certain main issues of the State of Israel.

The discussion lasted for an hour and a half and was interrupted by me, even if the rabbi wanted to continue it.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1957, unpaged.

5) During the war from 1948-1949, as a result of measures imposed by the Israeli authorities, an important part of the Arab population from the Israel territory (approximately 1 million people) took refuge in the neighbouring Arab countries. Thus occurred the problem of the “Palestinian refugees”, for which the U.N. has tried to find a humanitarian solution. The resolutions adopted by the U.N., which stipulate among others “that the Arab refugees in Palestine should be allowed to return to their homes if they wish to do so or they will be compensated by the responsible governments for the loss of their property”, were never implemented. Israel never agreed with the adopted resolutions, arguing that they are jeopardizing the existence of Israel as a State. The U.N. Committee dedicated to helping the refugees (U.N.R.W.A.) was established on December 8, 1949, by a U.N. resolution, which stipulated the allotment of 54.9 million dollars for the refugees. U.N.R.W.A. began its activity in May 1950. See “Lumea”, no. 13, March 21, 1974, p. 22. 6) Palestine was included several times in the composition of the ancient states due to its favourable strategic position. In the tenth century B.C. the Jewish tribes founded on Palestine’s territory a state, which after 100 years was divided into two kingdoms: Judea and Israel. The latter existed until 722 B.C., being dissolved by the Assyrians. Judea existed until 586 B.C., when it was conquered by Babylon. The Second Kingdom of Judah was dissolved in 70 B.C., by general (later on emperor) Titus. The Arab tribes appeared in Palestine in the seventh century A.D. The Arabs assimilated the local Aramaic population, transferring to them at the same their language and religion. Starting this period, the Arab population was predominant for a long time in Palestine.

101

64

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATI ON IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROM ANIA

REGARDING ASPECTS OF THE SOCIAL LIFE FROM ISRAEL

No. 22 [August 15], 1957, Tel Aviv During comrade Abramov’s dinner on August 15, where he invited: the President of the

Supreme Court [Yitzhak Olshan, 1895-1983; 1954-1965], the Ramat Gan mayor, the Netanya mayor, a VIP from Haifa (whose name I don’t recall), two members of the U.S.S.R. Embassy and myself, we have discussed among others with the Chairman of the Supreme Court.

As we started discussing my visit to the Prime-rabbi, I told him that the rabbi had declared that “If you, communists, stopped being against religion, you’d rule the world” . Concerning that, I went on to say: “In my country religious freedom is a reality. What bourgeois countries say about socialist states in this matter is nothing but lies and slander. I find it curious that the bourgeoisie, who used to the greatest enemy of the Church, is now a champion for defending faith”. “It is true that I – says Olshan – have heard nothing about believers being persecuted or the church being forbidden in your country”.

I went on to tell him that one thing I found peculiar in Israel, among others, was the fact that on Sabbaths trains or buses are out of service. Even worse: citizens who wish to travel with their own cars are stopped by the religious people. This means that basically, in Israel people deny the citizen’s religious freedom.

- Well yes, but our police intervene to stop the religious people, and thereby defend religious freedom.

- How about trains and buses then? - This is true. The Church has managed to impose its point of view in this matter. But

you must know that in the past, the power of the Church used to be even greater. Now it has diminished somewhat. We intend to separate the Church from the State in the next Constitution. I, for instance, am a state body, I have worked several times on Saturdays and there’s nobody to stop me.

- The next peculiar thing, I went on, is the fact that women are forced to perform military service1) (the only state in the world) and finally, that after 10 years the State of Israel still doesn’t have a written Constitution. I have asked for explanations in these matters. Concerning women, he admitted they are forced to do this, but that they are only used in the auxiliary military service.

Regarding the Constitution, he said that the essential reason is the lack of a clear situation with the state of Israel. This uncertainty regarding the state, he says, is due to “misunderstandings between the powers in the West and powers in the East” .

- We are like a game ball in the hands of these powers. As long as they don’t reach an agreement regarding the Near East, Israel’s situation will remain unstable, unclear”.

However, he went on, their laws protect the citizens, and they have advanced laws forbidding child and women labour. Whoever hires children to work will be punished.

1) The Israeli army consisted of young men performing the military service (men under 26 years old), Jewish, Druids or Circassians, the Arabs being excluded from the military service, and from the reservists (men under 55 years old and women under 37 years old), who executed every year a number of days in concentration camps (between 14-31 days).

102

I told him that I have information that nonetheless children are used in some form of labour on the great capitalist farms (this information was given by the Party and is verified). He denied, saying my information is incorrect.

I asked him about laws that defend the health of factory workers, labour protection and hygiene etc. He admitted there are none. That from this point of view we are way ahead of them. But, he said, “If we compare the sanitary situation of our industry with what it used to be during the mandate, the difference is as big as night and day”.

We weren’t able to continue our discussion because we were invited to see a movie, after which everyone left home shortly.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1957, unpaged.

65

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA

REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

No. 33 [September 12], 1957, Tel Aviv On September 12, I [Dr. Petru Manu] was invited to take breakfast in Jerusalem by

President Yitzhak Ben-Zvi1). Other people invited at breakfast were: Dr. N. Bar-Zakai, the Chairman of the Tel Aviv Regional Court, and his wife, Eytan Walter, Director General within Israeli M.F.A., Eshel Arie, M.F.A. Director and his wife, Yitzhak Korn and his wife, and general [Yossi] Carmel, adjutant to the President.

During breakfast we discussed several unimportant, occasional matters. But when professor Parhon was brought up, Director Eshel told me that the Jerusalem University had invited him here. I told him I didn’t think he would be able to come, because he is old. He explained that professor Parhon had accepted the invitation and wishes to come.

After breakfast we retired for coffee, so I remained alone with the President and the others were in various groups. He started the discussion by showing me some plates hanging on walls, on which various animals were painted – a lion, a snake, a gazelle, two rams etc. “These are the symbols of the seven ancient Judaic tribes, who were separated at first and later became unified. This is the origin of the seven-armed chandelier, said the President. In the ancient times there were seven tribes, and today the Jews are separated into 72 states”. With this he touched on the most painful problem for him, whom I knew of as well, namely the “reunion of the families”.

He started off by telling me that our countries could have very good relationships and that Romania could gain great popularity in Israel, if this “reunion of the families” issue were to be solved. This issue, Ben-Zvi went on, is a matter of humanity. Daily, I receive visits of old people asking me to help them get their children back. They would give anything to see their children again etc. Then he said that, despite everything, even if their relations with the Arabs surrounding them are not so good and even went through wars, they support “reunion of the families”. The result of this problem was the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews 1) Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (1884-1963), Israeli historian, ethnographer, journalist and politician (MAPAI); Zionist leader, editor of the first Socialist newspaper in Palestine (“Hitachdut”), founder of Histadrut (1920), of the Ahdut Haavoda Party (1919) and of MAPAI (1930). Member and chairman (1944-1949) of the Jewish National Council, member of the Knesset (1949-1952). The second President of Israel (1952-1963).

103

were allowed to come to Israel from all Arabian states. There’s been no war with Romania but their attitude is still way more unfavourable to us, even more than the Arab countries. Romania, as the saying goes, is “more catholic than the Pope”.

He went on to say that for Romania the 10-12,000 Jews are of no importance, we could do just fine without them, while for Israel this is a problem that results is many family tragedies. I answered that around 200,000 Jews came from Romania as well, which is quite a large percentage of our population, about 12%. “Yes, but when?, said the President. 70 years ago, probably. When I came here 50 years ago, Ben-Zvi went on, I found Jews from Romania”.

- No, I said. In 1951-1952 there were around 150,000 Jews who came here, which is why there is this issue of split families. Further on, I said that the P.R.R. government understands this “split families” situation, sees it as a humane matter and intends to ensure its positive outcome. This is why Olims come from P.R.R. almost weekly.

- But how many? said the President. - That depends, 15-20, 30 etc. - How many in one year? said Ben-Zvi. - Several hundred, I said. As to the numbers of these split families, it isn’t 10-12,000 but

8,000, according to the note I received from the Aliyah Council. From these 1 500 are “serious” cases, and I promised I would hand in the note and it might see a positive outcome. Then I directed our discussion towards the political problems of the Middle East, saying that here the political situation is permanently unsettled, that Israel’s position is not considered just in the socialist world. He interrupted me, saying that he didn’t want to talk politics, that the “reunion of the families” is a humane matter and they want nothing else than to solve a situation that causes grief in many families. To this (because I had something to tell him on this occasion) I replied that while I agree with the principle, things are interconnected and I’d like to give him my personal opinion regarding some political issues. Since I came to Israel I have noticed that your press is leading a persistent campaign against popular democracy countries and especially against the U.S.S.R. This Israeli attitude to socialist countries and the U.S.S.R. only harms Israel and Jewish people. You who intend to bring the Jews back to Israel will never reach this goal if you keep on stir up fire against the socialist states and the U.S.S.R. It is in your own interest, and in the interest of the Jewish people, that you end this action and seek friendship with the U.S.S.R.

He replied that they want to be in good relations with the U.S.S.R. and that many times they held out their hand but it was never shaken. For good relations, it is necessary for the other party to have at least some goodwill.

To this I said that Israel, in its best interests, should make the first steps in this direction, practically not theoretically. For instance, they could try to foster their cultural relations. He stopped me and said that “We wanted to have cultural relations and we still do. Look at this Nuclear Power Congress. The Russians wouldn’t participate although we invited them”. “I have been told, I said, that the Soviet delegate wasn’t able to come because his wife had died several days before”. “Not several days, Ben-Zvi whispered in my ear, but a year before. I have my information”. “That may be, but my information is different”. He went on to say that they invited the Soviets to the Judaic Science Congress, because they know that in U.S.S.R. there are personalities in this matter, but they didn’t come. Now they are invited to the International Philately Congress, and they have yet to respond. “You can see that we want to have cultural relations, it’s them who don’t”. I said that apparently he is right, but that, as far as I know, things aren’t quite so. For instance, the Soviets offered you science books to sell in Israel – cheap ones – that you could sell in Israeli liras and keep here. You forbid Soviet science books in Israel. Is that in the best interest of Israel? In my personal opinion, it isn’t. Israeli scientists have much to learn from the Soviet scientists in all areas: agriculture, technique, medicine etc. Why is this not allowed, since it is only useful to Israel? Also to

104

make the first steps, your press should stop its daily attacks on the U.S.S.R. and the socialist countries.

The Soviet Union has nothing in particular against Israel. Lately the U.S.S.R. has issued a statement regarding the problems in the Near East. I haven’t seen any positive Israeli reaction regarding these Soviet proposals.

You say that the Russians are arming the Egyptians and the Syrians against Israel. But then again there’s also the U.S.A. arming the Jordanians and Saudi Arabia.

“We protest against both these countries”, answered Ben-Zvi. Very well, I said. Let arms deliveries stop on both fronts. Then let’s have the Near East

countries discuss their litigious problems with each other. It’s a good solution. It’s also been the Soviet Union’s proposal, twice already. Israel has however continued to take sides with the United States against the Soviet Union. You as president of Israel have a great responsibility in all issues concerning the Jewish people. In my opinion, the most useful position for Israel is to neither side with the United States nor with the U.S.S.R., but to have normal, even good relations with both states. As a small state still in formation, the best interests of Israel and of the Jewish people are to go over neither of the Great Powers. If Israel were to adopt this position, I believe, and it is my personal opinion, that many things which are now in dispute with the socialist countries will be solved. But it is you who must make the first step, because it is in the best interests of Israel and of the Jewish people living in the socialist world. To this he gave no answer.

Then, his wife came, who started repeating the same theory of the “split families”, to whom I gave the same answer. My wife was also assaulted by Mrs. Ben-Zvi’s pleas regarding the “split families”.

When we left, President Ben-Zvi asked me to communicate his plea regarding the “split families” to my government, in the hope that the Romanian government would accept his request.


66


REGARDING CERTAIN ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOMESTIC AN D FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 48 [October 26], 1957, Tel Aviv Today, October 26, at the headquarters of the Legation, I received a visit from the

secretary of the Ahdut Haavoda Party, Yigal Allon [1918-1980], member of the Knesset and former secretary general of MAPAI in the days when Ahdut Haavoda was part of the MAPAI.

After a short introductory discussion, I asked him if what the newspapers report regarding talks for the fusion of the three parties, MAPAI, MAPAM and Ahdut Haavoda, has any basis in reality.

He said that there can be no fusion or unification between these parties, because the ideological differences between themselves and the MAPAI are big enough for this to be impossible. He went on to say that they are for a “federation” of these parties, in which every party maintains its organizational unity and ideology. There might be talks concerning this. He denied there are any discussions going on at the moment, but he implied that such a perspective is not impossible for the future.

105

Then I asked him about Israel’s “neutrality” position in its external policy, envisaged by a part of the press and by some of the party leaders. In this matter, he said, in Knesset the situation is this: the Ahdut Haavoda party, the MAPAM and part of the Progressives are for a neutral attitude. There are discussions about this even among the MAPAI, and the left wing of this party also declares itself to be for a position of “neutrality”. But if public opinion is to be taken into consideration, the percentage of those who desire a position of “neutrality” is much greater, around 50% in his opinion.

But, I said, the world sees you, as a state, fully siding with the U.S.A.’s policy, which you fully approve. I reminded him of Golda Meir’s statements, who said that, as regards the Middle East politics; the Israel and the U.S.A. have the same political views.

“We disagree with this. They say about us that we have adhered to the Eisenhower Doctrine1), but it isn’t true. We have never adhered to that. The only thing we did do was make a statement about this doctrine, but without declaring ourselves its adherents. I can tell you, confidentially, that even Ben Gurion said then, in an intimate circle, that this doctrine was born dead. The events that followed only confirmed this”. But this statement, I went on (statement which I brought immediately because I had had it copied), although equivocal, contains nothing implying that you don’t approve of it. The statement itself means that you more or less accept the doctrine’s “principles for solving the Middle East problems”.

“If you understand this statement in a different way, then your understanding is wrong. We are a free, independent country. These accusations, that we are agents of the American imperialism, that we are imperialists, are unjustified. You mustn’t forget that here we have been and we continue to be a factor for progress. In the past we have fought against the English and if they left the Middle East it’s mostly due to the sacrifices we made and to the blood we shed. In this battle we admit that we’ve had the help of the socialist world. Without the weapons from Czechoslovakia, we wouldn’t have been able to defeat the English. We also the U.S.S.R.’s and the U.S.A.’s support in creating the state of Israel. And for this we are grateful to the U.S.S.R. What you must know is that here, every year, we celebrate the 7th of November, because we thought, and we still do, that the October Revolution is a benchmark in the development of society. When in 1940*) the U.S.S.R. made that non-aggression pact with Hitler’s Germany, we understood and approved it. We went through very hard days then in the Palestine, subjected to all sorts of offences by extremist Zionists. We had many meetings talking about the U.S.S.R. After our state was created, the U.S.S.R.’s position regarding us was indifferent. Due to the way things were, we had to turn to the U.S.A., who gave us the necessary funds to repatriate more than a million people. This repatriation and having to include it [sic!] in the state’s economy required inhuman efforts. What were we to do if the U.S.S.R. refused to answer any of our calls? This is the way things were when Czechoslovakia and then the U.S.S.R. started supplying Egypt with weapons, obviously to be used against us. From this date onwards our relations have grown colder, but we bear no responsibility for this. For instance, we asked the U.S.S.R. for help because they have a huge

1) The Eisenhower Doctrine – the doctrine formulated by general Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), President of the U.S.A. (Jan. 20, 1953-Jan. 20, 1961). According to it the U.S.A. had the right and the responsibility to guarantee that none of the Middle East nations will not become the victim of military intervention and communist subversion, after the power vacuum created by the retreat of Great Britain, France and Israel’s troops from Egypt, after the invasion during the Suez Crisis in 1956-1957. On March 9, 1957, the U.S.A. Congress passed by which it empowered the President “assistance against the armed aggression from a country controlled by the international communism”. Sixteen months later, Eisenhower enforced the doctrine, by sending the Seventh Fleet and 14,000 American marines to Lebanon, to prevent an action encouraged by the Soviets against the pro-western regime from Beirut. The Eisenhower Doctrine will be invoked by subsequent American administrations to continue to help various countries in the Middle East. *) The correct date of the Non-Aggression between U.S.S.R. and Germany (also known as the “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact”) is August 23, 1939.

106

experience in the desert problem. We asked for cultural exchanges, deputy exchanges, a boost of our economic relations etc. The U.S.S.R. dignified none of our requests with an answer. Our greatest problem is making peace with the Arab countries around us, establishing our country’s borders. We have asked the U.S.S.R. help with mediation. There was no answer”.

“I’m not familiar with any of these matters, I said, but you must admit that it is hard for anyone to make such commitments while you continue to have borderline conflicts and when you treat your Arab minorities with such discrimination.

You must show an act of good will, you must do something to prepare the field. The Arabs say that you must respect the Resolution of the U.N.’s General Meeting regarding the creation of the state of Israel. But you have breached this resolution”.

“The Arabs, he said, won’t admit to the existence of our state, but we still invite them, without any prior condition, unlike them, to meet and talk our issues through. As to the military government, we are against it. I am convinced that our current government will solve this problem and give equal rights both to Arabs and to Jews. You must know that the Israeli Arabs’ standard of life is much higher than that of Arabs in the neighbouring countries, especially in Jordan. But the position of Arab countries regarding us is that of extermination. It’s evident that we have a right to live and so we must defend ourselves. During international conferences, such as the one held in Bandung2), they asked for this. Even on other occasions, such as during the fight for peace with the participation of representatives of progressive parties, the Arabs continue to refuse to discuss with us or even sit with us. This proves that they, from feudalists to progressives, base their policy on reducing the state of Israel to ashes. There are even some great powers who seek to gain the Arabs’ trust by propaganda against Israel”.

“I don’t know, I said, to what extent this presumption is valid. But I do know, however, that the U.S.S.R., this spring, came with a 6-point proposal for solving the problems in the Middle East. I also know that, not long ago, the U.S.S.R. has made several other constructive proposals in this direction. Why has Israel taken no action?”

“Because, he said, these proposals were addressed not to us but to the Great Powers”. “Yes, I said, but you are in the middle and you would’ve done well to state your opinion

in this matter”. Then we went on to discuss their relations with the I.C.P. I asked him what their

relations with the I.C.P. are. “It’s bad. This party is nothing but a «gramophone» playing disks produced by others. They used to adopt U.S.S.R.’s policy, and now they have adopted Nasser’s policy3). The I.C.P. has no mass basis here in Israel because its policy is against the Israeli nation. It is against the current borders; it is against immigration and defends Nasser and Syria, who want to dissolve the state of Israel. I.C.P.’s policy here is just as valid as if it were for Honolulu. Leninism is not against the nation, it doesn’t require communist parties to lead an anti-national policy, and yet they act against immigration”.

“I don’t think things are exactly so, I said. The I.C.P. has been against the Sinai action, for instance.

“So have we, he said”.

2) The Asian-African conference of Bandung took place within Apr. 18-24, 1955; 29 countries participated. The meeting examined problems regarding economic, political and cultural cooperation between states, the right to self-determination of peoples and human rights, the independence of the peoples in the colonies. The meeting passed the Declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation. 3) Gamal Abdel Nasser (in Arabic Jamal Abd-ai Nasr) (1918-1970), Egyptian statesman. In 1942 he founded the clandestine movement “Patriot Officers” with the purpose of fighting against the British hegemony. He ruled Egypt within Nov. 17, 1954-Sept. 28, 1970 (since Jun. 23, 1956 as President). Between Jun. 29, 1956-Sept. 24, 1962 he was also Prime Minister.

107

“The I.C.P., I said, require equality in rights for Arabs and a policy of neutrality. Don’t you think you could find a way to reach a common collaboration platform for the main external and internal policy problems between leftist parties and the I.C.P.?”

“I don’t think so, he replied. It’s impossible to talk to the I.C.P. They are completely outside the zone when it comes to the national problems of our state”.

Then we discussed elections for presidency. There are 99.9% chances that Ben-Zvi will be elected, because, he says, he is very popular in Israel.

With that our discussion ended, and we decided we’d meet again and exchange opinions

in various matters.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


67

LETTER OF CHIVU STOICA 1), PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, ADDRESSED TO

DAVID BEN GURION, PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF IS RAEL, ON THE ISSUE OF REINTEGRATION OF FAMILIES

December 1957, Bucharest

Your Excellency,

I have carefully read Your Excellency’s letter2) sent through Mr. A. Harell, Israel’s

Ministry in Bucharest, and I ensure you that you have our ear in the issue concerning the reunion of families from the P.R.R. in Israel and from Israel in the P.R.R. 1) Chivu Stoica (1908-1975), Romanian politician; leader of the communist labour movement in Romania. Member of the Political Office (1945-1965), secretary of the C.C. of the R.L.P. (1961-1965); Member of Executive Committee and of the Permanent Presidium of the C.C. of the R.C.P. (1965-1967). Vice President (1950-1954), First Vice President (1954-1955) and Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1955-1961). President of the State Council (1965-1967). 2) On November 24, 1957, the Prime Minister of Israel sent the following message to the head of the Romanian government:

“Your Excellency,

I am addressing Your Excellency regarding a painful matter that has been troubling me for a while and is absolutely humanitarian. This fact causes suffering and pain to many citizens of Israel and I am presenting you now this intervention of mine, knowing that Your Excellency has the power to end the suffering of these people. It’s about all those separated families, part of which are in the People’s Republic of Romania and the other part in Israel.

Your Excellency is aware of the terrible fate of Jews during the fascist regime in Romania. Many of them were killed by the oppressors in the destruction camps or died in labor camps due to the inhumane conditions they had there. The whole world was shaken then by the tragedy unmatched in human history. After the war ended, the new Romanian government has begun to repair the injustice done by the oppressors to the Jewish population. Many of them who so wanted were allowed due to a completely humanitarian attitude deeply to rebuild on the Israeli land their lives that had been destroyed. Following this generous attitude, many of them were allowed to leave Romania and come to Israel. This action lasted until 1951.

The sudden interruption of this process has created the problem for which I am addressing Your Excellency to find a solution. Thousands of families which, without their fault, were not able to leave with their own and who did not know, of course, that an interruption will occur, were thus separated. Husbands were separated from their wives, parents from their children, brothers from their brothers.

108

The government of the People’s Republic of Romania is aware of the Jews’ fate, of the persecutions and extermination actions aimed at them, together with the greatest part of the population in fascist or fascisticized countries during the Second World War. For these very same reasons the People’s Republic of Romania, consistent with its peace policy, is and has been against aggressive policies and actions and is firmly decided to make all efforts, together with all peace-loving countries, to avoid a third world war, so that the peoples no longer face the destructions and suffering of such a calamity.

In the People’s Republic of Romania, the Jewish population is an integral part of the Romanian people. As such, they enjoy all rights and liberties, fully equal to all other citizens of the country.

As you already know, the P.R.R. government has always considered the reunion of the families as a humanitarian problem that has all our attention. Guiding itself by well-known humanitarian criteria, the government of the People’s Republic of Romania has always allowed departure to Israel, for the purpose of family reunion, for individuals who wish to do so and meet the established criteria. These are departures for one spouse to the other, for minor children to their parents, for elderly parents to their children, namely first degree relatives.

All requests received regarding departure for Israel are carefully examined, and if justified they receive a positive approval from case to case, according to the laws and provisions applicable to all citizens of the People’s Republic of Romania.

I ensure you, Your Excellency that the Romanian government will continue to dedicate itself to solving the family reunion requests both for Israel and for any other country, where humanitarian aspects are indeed involved. The Romanian government is however unable to accept that the mass emigration of Romanian citizens becomes a discussion topic with the

The suffering caused and the social complications created due to this fact worsened over the years and

countless human family tragedies happened. This issue represented the subject of discussions between the representatives of the Roman government

and Israel. The representatives of the Romanian government showed understanding by admitting that it is necessary to end the suffering of the separated families. I wish to express to Your Excellency our deep gratitude for those cases for which the authorities from your country have allowed to reunite the separated families. But the rate at which the Romanian government grants exit visas to the members of the separated family can not solve the problem, if it won’t accelerate. We are talking about thousands of people among the families I mentioned, and the exit visas are granted only to a few dozen people each month.

A noticeable encouragement awoke in the hearts of Israelis born in Romania after the notice that the Minister of the People’s Republic of Romania in Israel proposed to be submitted a first nominal list of relatives of the Israeli citizens who wish to come to them in Romania.

In the past days I learned with great joy about the assertion of the Minister of the People’s Republic of Romania in Israel, who communicated to the newspapers that “the Romanian government has a positive attitude towards family reunion, considering it a humanitarian matter”. This statement has certainly reinforced the hope of the separated families.

I am asking Your Excellency to give Your personal attention to the resolution of this problem and I emphasize once again its humanitarian essence. I am convinced and sure that the Government of the People’s Republic of Romania will be able to find an administrative arrangement which would allow the prompt departure of the members of the separated families who have been wanting for years to join their relatives in Israel.

I am sure that such attitude from the government of the People’s Republic of Romania will create favourable echoes all around the world and will be received with great satisfaction by all the circles who are aware of this matter and feel its pain. Respectfully,

(Ss) D. Ben Gurion”

109

Israeli government or with any other government, since it is strictly an internal issue of the People’s Republic of Romania.


68


REGARDING THE POLITICAL CRISIS FROM ISRAEL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

No. 69 January 20, 1958, Tel Aviv Today, January 20th, I have received a visit from Ben Aaron1), secretary of the Ahdut

Haavoda2) party, deputy in the Knesset and member of the Political Office of Ahdut Haavoda. He was accompanied by Rabinovich, chief of the Foreign Relations Department of the same party.

Our discussion took one hour and a half. After a short introduction where we talked about Negev and its future development, we moved on to the matters of interest to me. I asked his view of the new government because the press published opinions according to which, while the governmental crises may have been solved, the political crises hasn’t. He said it’s true. The political crisis in Israel hasn’t been solved because it is complicated and can’t be solved easily. He said: We have demanded in the Knesset and are fighting as we speak for a policy of neutrality, but without any support from the outside, which is why we are forced to move within the space we have today. A while ago, he said, I talked to Ambassador Abramov, and I told him why the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist countries lead a discriminatory policy towards us. All states, irrelevant of their political regime, receive the U.S.S.R.’s economic help without any political conditions. We are the only ones they ask to break up with the Americans first and then we’ll see. We are the only state in the region without military pacts or any other alliances with other states. We are a state with a government containing three labour parties, a democratic state, and still our demands are always facing rejection. Immediately after 1949, we, who have supported (he meant the Ahdut Haavoda party) the October Revolution and the socialist Russia in Palestine under English occupation, we have requested support with technicians in all areas, especially in order to drain desert lands, send students to the higher education institutions in the U.S.S.R., to the Military Academy, etc., etc. We were refused. Of course we had to send all those who wanted a specialization to the U.S.A. and other capitalist states. Today workers wonder what guarantees do we have, if we cool down our relations with the U.S.A., that the U.S.S.R. will support us, given that the U.S.S.R.’s current interest is to win over the Arabian world. Due to this lack of manoeuvring on the outside, we are now forced to side with the U.S.A. Why does the U.S.S.R. help Lebanon, who has a military pact with the U.S.A., or to Saudi Arabia, which is an extremist retrograde monarchy, while it has a negative attitude towards Israel’s proposals for years? I hope that this situation is only conjectural and that in the end the U.S.S.R. will change its attitude towards us.

1) Yitzhak Ben Aaron (1906-1977), Israeli politician, born in Cernăuţi. Secretary of MAPAI (1941) will further joint the Ahdut Haavoda Party; founder and leader of MAPAM, member of the Knesset (1949-1977). Minister of Transportation and Communications (1959-1962). Secretary General of Histadrut (1969-1973). 2) Ahdut Haavoda, Socialist party, separated from MAPAM in 1954, part of the government since 1955.

110

Then, I asked him if Ben Gurion’s personal position increased or not after this crisis and if he thinks that, given the new laws being designed (state and press security, the new platform), they will be forced to fully obey the decisions of the government. He said that, despite the general opinion, Ben Gurion’s position hasn’t increased but on the contrary, he was forced to abandon his demands regarding Ahdut Haavoda, namely:

1) Public recognition by Ahdut Haavoda regarding its divulgation of a state secret and public apology, as well as 2) Changing the ministries. Confidentially, he said, I can tell you that Ben Gurion’s design was to remove us from the government, us and MAPAM as well. The MAPAI Central Committee opposed this and forced him to continue with us. In the current situation in the Knesset, the only possible government is in this formation. Masses of workers demanded in the meetings of the three “labours parties” that the current coalition be continued. Alright, but according to the current arrangements, you must obey the decisions whether or not to leave the government. What happens if you disagree on a matter?

We will vote against and there will be other government crises. That means that the situation is in general same as before, I said.

Yes, in general we can say there has been no change. Regarding the Cairo conference, he said that it contained a resolution very bad for Israel,

with negative effects on the progressive forces here. He explained that it’s due to MAPAI bringing up arguments against them, claiming that “neutral countries” in Africa and Asia voted against Israel. Considering this, says the MAPAI, how can you possibly envisage Israel having a policy of neutrality? But, Ben Aaron went on, Burma, Malaya, Ghana and Yugoslavia did not vote this resolution, and the “Borba” even wrote an article against it. I asked him if Moshe Dayan3) is leaving from Paris to Bonn. He said that he definitely isn’t. He has no power in this direction. Regarding the Israeli delegation at the conference held by the European Committee for a Common Market and its demand to be received as a member of this N.A.T.O. committee, he denied Israel ever having such demands. He said that the delegation only has an observer role and that Israel intends to take part in the proceedings since it is a state with relations to European countries.

I asked about his opinion regarding the letter sent by Bulganin4) and the government’s answer. He said that the letter contains interesting and acceptable things, but that at the time he wasn’t made aware of his government’s answer. When Rabinovich read the title of the answer in the “Maariv”, he made a face and didn’t seem to like the government’s response. Regarding Ahdut Haavoda’s relations with the I.C.P. and the possibility of finding common points of action, he said he sees none. He said that the I.C.P. is just as relevant in the Israel as it would be in Honolulu, for instance. His opinion is that the I.C.P. is the only communist party in the world working against the interests of its nation.

If we take into consideration nothing more than the title of the party, Ahdut Haavoda “Poalei Zion”, which means the Labour Party of Zionist Workers, than the I.C.P. can never agree on this nationalist conception. At the end, he invited me to visit the “Lamerhav” journal and to dine there. I accepted and am waiting for the invitation.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1958, unpaged. 3) Moshe Dayan (1915-1981), Israeli general and politician. Member of “Haganah” since 1937, commander of the Jerusalem region in the 1948 war, he negotiates armistice with Jordan (1949). Commander of the Israeli army (1953-1958). Member of MAPAI and Member in Knesset (1959); Minister of Agriculture (1959-1964); member of Rafi party (1965) and Minister of Defence (since Jun. 1967). Afterwards Minister of Foreign Affairs (1970-1974, 1978-1971). 4) Nikolai Al. Bulganin (1895-1975), Soviet politician and marshal. Member of the C.C. of the C.P.S.U. Presidium (1948-1959). Chairman of the Council of Ministers of U.S.S.R. (Feb. 8, 1955-Mar. 27, 1958).

111

69

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE ISRAELI POLICY

No. 76 February 22, 1958, Tel Aviv On February 22nd, I was invited by Golda Meir to a musical soiree, with the

participation of members of the diplomacy, ministers and personalities in Israel. On this occasion, after congratulating Golda Meir for her son’s talent (he had had a

concert that evening), I demanded to know some details regarding her visit to Western Africa. In response to my question and my wishing her bon voyage, she said that she would visit Ghana, Libya and maybe Nigeria.

That she went to Ghana before, last year, and that this visit is a continuation of the good relations between them and these states. She refused to say any more. Later on, I learned from the official communiqué that she was also going to visit French territories in Africa, accompanied by the Israeli ambassador in Paris and by the Israeli M.F.A.’s Director for Western Africa.

The purpose of her visit is to allow Israeli, American and French capital to enter the countries in this part of Africa. I must mention that Israel has close relations with Ghana, to whom they gave, among others, 30 million dollars (while on the other hand Israel asks for loans from everyone: the U.S.A., France, Japan, etc.).

During that same evening I spoke to Pavlos Pandermalis, the Greek diplomatic representative. He said that in Jordan the population is not very “enthusiastic” about the federalization1). But Jordan will have much to gain, he said, because Iraq has a great deal more economic possibilities compared to Jordan. The same day the currency was changed, salaries were increased and all state workers, as well as all officers, will receive gratifications equal a month’s salary. When I asked him about the capital, the parliament, the country’s administration etc., he said that nothing can be specified for now. The situation is rather unclear.

Then I discussed with [Yisrael] Barzilai [1913-1970], the Health Minister [1955-1961, 1966-1969], about the united Arab state and federalization. After a short hesitation, he said that this will of course influence the political developments in the Near East and Middle East as well as in Israel. “We are currently waiting to see how things turn out”. He wouldn’t say more.

When I saw that I moved to other unimportant matters, unwilling to insist too much on this subject that I had approached.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


1) On Feb. 14, 1958 was proclaimed the Arab Federation (Iraq and Jordan), which was repealed on Aug. 2 the same year.

112

70

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH THE DELEGATION OF THE AHDUT HAAVODA P ARTY SENT

TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGAR DING THE SITUATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND

THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS

No. 100 October [29], 1958, Tel Aviv On October 29th, I received Ben Aaron’s visit at the Legation, secretary general of the

Ahdut Haavoda party, member of the Knesset and the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, accompanied by Derech, political secretary of Ahdut Haavoda, and by M. Rabinovich, chief of the Foreign Relations Department of Ahdut Haavoda.

Ben Aaron, after a short introductory conversation, said that they are very satisfied with our government’s decision to allow Jews from the P.R.R. to come back and reunite with their families. They expressed their thanks for the P.R.R. government’s understanding of this humanitarian problem. He went on to say that most Jews to have arrived so far from the P.R.R. belong to the “middle classes”. It wasn’t the same with the Polish. Some of them were trade workers, farmers, etc., because they had to spend time in U.S.S.R. where they were “re-oriented”. This is why, says Ben Aaron, most of them won’t go to the countryside and practice agriculture, and generally refuse the “development locations” where they are distributed. There will be difficulties for the first 2 or 3 years. This is what it’s like when you build a country, the pains of labour, concluded Ben Aaron.

After that we moved on to another problem, namely the situation in Jordan and Israel’s relations with it and Arab countries in general. Ben Aaron said: “There might be a republic or the current state form might be preserved but the government could be changed, etc. We don’t care what happens in Jordan, to the extent in which a change in Jordan’s internal regime has repercussions on the security of our state. Which is why, says Ben Aaron, I consider Ben Gurion’s proposal to demilitarize the land west of Jordan and bring in U.N. troops, in case an internal change occurs in Jordan, in this direction, is logical and useful for us. Each country is entitled to defend its territory and take prevention measures for its security. In any case, we can’t accept Nasser’s troops in Old Jerusalem. That would put them right in the middle, 1 km. away from Knesset and 7 km away from Netanya, etc., etc.”.

He said that Ben Gurion’s statements are just personal opinions. He doesn’t think Ben Gurion, now aged 73, could dream of conquering new territories.

I have seen in the press that you requested information regarding the statement made to the Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, and other deputies requested general discussions regarding the government’s policy, I said. What do you think? “I don’t think, said Ben Aaron, that a general discussion of the government’s policy could have any results”. In this case 6 or 7 speeches will be held in the Knesset and then the whole matter will be sent over to the Foreign Policy Commission, where the debate will be endless and without any results. Ben Aaron went on to say that Israel’s situation is difficult from the point of view of its security. No one will guarantee it won’t be attacked. “With the Arabs (U.A.R.)1) we are legally at war.

1) On Feb. 1, 1958, Syria and Egypt formed The United Arab Republic (U.A.R.), which was joined on Mar. 9, 1958 by Yemen, as associate member. On Feb. 21, 1958, G.A. Nasser became President. In Dec. 1961, Yemen withdrew from the U.A.R. On Sept. 28, 1961, Syria withdrew from the U.A.R. and declared independence as the Syrian Arab Republic. On Apr. 17, 1963 was created the federal state of the U.A.R. (with Cairo as capital) and the regions: Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi.

113

Nasser declared that he wants Israel to be destroyed and refused to meet us to discuss our disputes.”

That is because you demand that discussions take place on condition that the current borderline is accepted, I said. “No, we want discussions without any prior conditions. But the Arabs keep refusing”. Here Derech joined in. “I went to the Peace Conference in Stockholm. On this occasion I tried to talk to Arab delegates, members of the peace committees, but they refused. You see that even when they fight for peace, they still won’t talk to us. We also proposed a resolution in Stockholm demanding an initiative is started so that all disputes in the Middle East are solved peacefully. This proposal was rejected at the Arabs’ request”. Ben Aaron started talking again and said that Israel has made permanent efforts to meet with the Arabs. For instance, not long ago, Mr. Ben Gurion asked Mr. Khrustchev2), through Mr. Bodrov3) to mediate such a meeting, anywhere, in Moscow for instance. No answer was received.

“Why don’t you call the U.S.A., England or France to intermediate a meeting?” I asked. He laughed. “They have no influence on the Arabs and especially England is badly compromised in the Middle East. On the other hand, the Soviet Union has a large influence. Which is why we are wondering why does the socialist world refuse to support us? Also, we don’t understand why the socialist world’s foreign policy, that says that all disputes between people can be solved peacefully, by bargaining, doesn’t apply in our case.” Here he turned to me directly saying that he calls on us as a socialist country to help them. Not only in Israel’s best interests, but also for world peace. I answered: You should start by helping yourselves. How? He said. Here’s an example, a personal opinion in the matter: I think it would be better if you, as a democratic state, granted full equality to all citizens, help all national minorities reach equal economic, cultural development etc. It would be for Israel’s own good if the military government was abolished, since it causes so much trouble for your government, so on and so forth.

To this, Ben Aaron, who changed colour, replied somewhat angrily that they were and are in favour of abolishment of the military government, but it is supported by Ben Gurion. That they will continue to fight against the military government.

After that, Ben Aaron moved again to discuss Israel’s defence, repeating that they will be forced to take security measures when Nasser’s troops reach Old Jerusalem. Then he spoke about the amounts being spent on weaponry in the Middle East, which could well be used to raise the living standard in this part of the world. And again he called to the socialist countries to support them in peacefully solving their relations with the Arab countries. All in the interest of world peace.

Derech then said that even during the Florence Conference (that he participated in), the Arabs showed a negative attitude towards Israel. They refused to make statements, to recognize the existence of the state of Israel, even though it didn’t represent a commitment from their state since they had been invited as individuals and not as representatives of any state. They also refused to declare they want a peaceful settlement of their relations with Israel. This is evidence that the Arabs don’t wish to make any peace with us.

After that we talked some more about unimportant things and the discussion ended.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


2) Nikita S. Khrushchev (1894-1971), Soviet statesman. First secretary of C.C. of the C.P.S.U. (1953- 1964) and Prime Minister of U.S.S.R. (1958-1964). 3) Mikhail Fedorovich. Bodrov (1903-1988), was the new ambassador of U.S.S.R. in Tel Aviv (1958-1964).

114

71

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK ARTZI, GENERAL SECRETARY OF

THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELA TIONS AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SITUATION IN THE REGION

No. 103 December [8], 1958, Tel Aviv On December 8, I was received at the legation the visit of Artzi1), Secretary General of

the Progressive Party. The discussion started with him telling me that he was glad that P.R.R. is resolve the “reunification” problem and that he hoped for the relations between P.R.R. and Israel to be better and better. I asked him how his trip to the U.S. was and when responding, among others, he wanted to emphasize that he was in the United States when he heard the news on the Jews arriving from the P.R.R. This brought great joy among many communities in New York who knew about the family “separation” issue. Some of them are even directly interested, being born in P.R.R. and having relatives in Romania.

When speaking about the United States, among others, to my question, he told me that Nelson Rockefeller2) is member of a Board in New York for Yeshiva (High School for the study of Mosaic religion) whose purpose is to collect money for Yeshiva and various other purposes necessary for the Jewish movement in the U.S.A. and in the world. (This is why Rockefeller had the support of the Jews in New York in the last elections for governor. Moreover, the fact that Rockefeller contributes financially to the world Zionist movement is old news and well known).

Speaking about the situation in Israel, Artzi spoke about Nahum Goldman. The Progressive Party is considered to be the descendant of Weizmann3), who was the founder of the party. That is why Goldman has close ties with them, being a longtime member of the party from the time when he was abroad. Artzi knows some things about Goldman’s position towards Israel’s domestic and foreign policy. He said: “Goldman hoped to have the support of the U.S.S.R. in his Israel neutrality policy. However, he wasn’t invited by the U.S.S.R. to visit the country (on the contrary his request to visit the U.S.S.R. was rejected – Peter Manu) and because of this his action for the Israel neutrality policy had no grounds. We regret that Goldman was not given the necessary support. We are for Israel neutrality policy, but in order to leave the U.S.A., we must the guarantee that the other camp accepts us and guarantees our neutrality” .

The truth is that Goldman wanted to go to the U.S.S.R. to make contact with Jewish communities there and then to instigate against the Soviets. Regarding the “neutrality”

1) Yitzhak Artzi (1920-2003), Israeli politician. He was born in Siret, a city from Bucovina. He graduated Faculty of Letters and Philosophy in Bucharest, and studied law and economic sciences in Tel Aviv. At the end of World War II he organized the Zionist Movement in Romania. He immigrated to Palestine, in 1946, from Yugoslavia. In Israel he held several public positions; he was Secretary General of the Progressive Party, of the United Liberal Party and of the Independent Liberal Party. He was deputy mayor, then mayor of Tel Aviv, for 10 years. Member of the Knesset, he was a member of several committees, among which the Finance and Economy committee. 2) Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (1908-1979), the nephew of the first American billionaire. Since 1940, he is involved in political issues (among others, he participated in the founding of the U.N. in San Francisco in 1945; he was special advisor to President Eisenhower). In 1958, he defeated Democrat Averell Harriman in the fight for the position of governor of New York, being re-elected in 1962, 1966, and 1970. He resigned from this position on Dec. 11, 1973. He ran for the investiture of the Republican Party in the presidential elections from 1960, 1964 and 1968. 3) Reference to Chaim Weizmann, the first President of the State of Israel.

115

displayed by of Goldman, it was characterized by the M.F.A. of U.S.S.R., as well as by the U.S.S.R. Embassy in Israel, as being purely American, and Goldman as an agent of the State Department. Through his blathering about “neutrality” he wanted to spread even more confusion in the Middle Eastern countries and to hide even more the fact that here Israel is nothing more than a disguised outpost of the most aggressive contemporary imperialism, the U.S. imperialism.

In connection with the incident at the border with Syria4), Artzi supported the government’ official argument, namely that Syria provoked, that demilitarized zone means Israel’s right to use the land productively, etc.. The Syrian “Attack” “explains” it based on Egypt’s “precarious” financial situation, through the discontent from Syria, caused with the purpose of distracting people from the country’s actual situation. “Instigation against Israel was always the best way to unite Arab countries”.

Then he said that, in response to these “challenges” we will be forced to take defensive actions to defend the lives of our citizens.

Therefore, his thesis was identical to Ben Gurion’s and to all the parties in Israel except for the Communist Party. This time all the parties, unlike the campaign in Sinai, were united in their intention to attack Syria and Egypt. The situation was very tense at one in time, creating a true state of war.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


72

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK KORN, PRESIDENT OF H.O.R., RE GARDING THE

ISSUE OF THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION FR OM ROMANIA

No. 104 December [10], 1958, Tel Aviv On December 10, 1958, I received Yitzhak Korn in audience at the Legation, at his

request. Yitzhak Korn began by telling me that the purpose of his visit was to inform me that the arrival of the Jews from Romania is regarded with great satisfaction not only by those families, but also by the government, Sohnut, by everyone. That he, personally, is very happy and hoping that the relations with the P.R.R. will improve. He reminded me that the press ceased to slander the P.R.R., on the contrary (only sometimes, I interrupted him), in their public speeches they said words of praise for the P.R.R., etc..

I replied that, however, the media still publishes certain statements related to the arrival of the Jews, like the following: “to save our brothers from perdition” which cannot be interpreted in any way as an appreciation of the “human gesture” made by the P.R.R. He replied that this is a Zionist conception, that those who don’t come to Israel may be in danger of being assimilated, therefore perdition. That P.R.R. was not targeted and I shouldn’t interpret it as such, etc. He didn’t any question about the number of people to come, so forth. Perhaps they are better informed than me by their Legation in Bucharest.

However I asked him about the number of those to come. He said that lately, November-December, there are 3-400 arriving every week. During the entire period i.e. from July until December 10the 3,800 people came from P.R.R. Out of these, 35-40% are settling by

4) See also “Scânteia”, Year XXVII, no. 4367, Nov. 9, 1954, p. 4. (“Israeli troops violated the demilitarized zone”).

116

themselves in Israel. Approximately 8-10% chose to work in agriculture. They put together a plan for finding jobs in agriculture for 400 families. All those who came were introduced to good homes, not in the past in Maabaroturs. He said they will build in the next 5-6 months another 1,500 homes. He admitted however that they had difficulties with finding them jobs. But “we had difficulties finding them job with all the Aliyah, so we’re used to it.”

That being said, our discussion shifted to other topics of no importance.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


73

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH GOLDA MEIR, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAI RS OF

THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND

THE SITUATION OF THE ROMANIAN CHURCH FROM JERUSALEM

No. 107 December [16], 1958, Tel Aviv On December 16, I was invited together with my wife to a dinner party by Golda Meir. Other people who attended this dinner were: 1. The Chargé d’affaires in

Czechoslovakia. 2. The Ambassador to the Netherlands, Italy, the Minister of Uruguay, the Chargé d’affaires a.i. in the U.S.A. 3. Finance Minister Levi Eshkol1), Mrs. Dr. Kaplan and another senior official of the Israeli M.F.A.

After we finished the meal, while having coffee I talked with Golda Meir who said that Harrel was going to Moscow and that he regretted leaving Bucharest, especially now that he was happy that the Jews were coming. Then she continued, saying that we are glad as well, obviously, especially that “Romanians” are “quality people”.

I asked her if any of these quality people among those who go to work in agriculture in agriculture. She said yes. Moreover, “we’ll teach them to work,” and she laughed.

Returning to Harrel, she said they requested the agreement for another person in his place, but without saying their name.

Then I shifted the conversation towards the subject I was interested in, namely the building pertaining to the Romanian Orthodox Church. I told her that the Romanian Orthodox Church has a building in Jerusalem (Israel), which was bought by a priest who put his name on the deed, and now the R.O.C. wants the deed on the building to be transferred from the priest to the Church. In this regard I went to the Consular Directorate, having all the necessary documents for the registration.

Then I asked her if she could give instructions for rushing the work, because the operation itself is a mere formality.

She asked me what the building was used currently and I told her I didn’t know. What I do know is that the property consists of a church and a house deferred to the church.

1) Levi Eshkol (Shkolnik) (1895-1969), Israeli politician. Pioneer of the Zionist movement, founder of the first kibbutz in Palestine (1914), of Histadrut and afterwards of the State of Israel. Minister of Finance (1952-1963); Prime Minister (1963-1969).

117

Golda Meir promised that the issue will be solved, namely she will instruct the clerk with regard to the execution of the work*.

After that, the discussion evolved to subjects of no special grave importance.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


74

REPORT OF THE CONSULATE GENERAL OF ROMANIA IN DAMAS CUS ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROM ANIA

REGARDING THE SITUATION OF EMIGRATIONS TO THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 107 May 11, 1959, Damascus Confidential Referring to the circular telegram of the M.F.A. No. 03266 dated February 6, current

year, we report the following: 1. The issue of the so-called emigration to Israel had only very rarely been raised by the

media over the past two months, and without the vehemence characteristic of the campaign led to the end of February, in that respect, against the socialist countries and especially against the P.R.R. (at the time, I informed you telegraphically on the libels published in the local press).

The AGERPRES Declaration1), which we succeeded to broadcast and even to introduce in the press there, had, without doubt, a positive role in settling down those libels and overreactions.

On the other hand, once with the intensification of the anti-Communist and anti-Iraqi campaign initiated by Nasser at Damascus, after the shameful failure of the Mosul rebellion2), that issue was placed on a totally secondary position or even erased from the arsenal of official propaganda. Recently, there had been signs of a new attempt of retackling that topic by the manufacturers of lies and libels from Cairo and their lackeys.

Referring to Fawzi’s3) visit to Geneva and to Vienna, the “Al Ahram” newspaper of Cairo, in its edition from April 7, current year, outlined that the U.A.R. Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Vienna for discussions over several important matters. “After all, Vienna is the centre of massive emigration of the Jews to Israel”. On the same day, the French “Le Progrès Egyptien” daily journal published, under the cuff: A measure that surprises the West, the article titled: “Jews emigration, unauthorized in Romania” . The article contained a series of insinuations addressed to the P.R.R., among which “the Jews emigration stopped at the beginning of March without any explanations, after 20,000 Jews had left the country. It is considered that Abdel Nasser’s protests were the ones that put an end to emigration”. (The respective article was annexed*)). * “On December 18 comrade Petrescu received a telephone call, being invited by the Israeli M.F.A. for December 21, in connection with this matter” (author ref.). 1) See “Scânteia”, Year XXVIII, no. 4457, Feb. 25, 1959, pp. 1, 3. 2) The Mosul Anti-Government Rebellion took place within Mar. 8-9, 1959, eventually being suppressed. 3) Mahmoud Fawzi (900-1981), Egyptian officer, diplomat and politician. Former director of the Department of Nationalities within the M.F.A. (1939-1941), consul in Jerusalem (1941-1944), permanent representative to the U.N. (1946-1952), ambassador in London (1952), Minister of Foreign Affairs (1952-1958). Commander of the Egyptian army (1958-1967); Minister of Defence (1967-1972). *) It will not be published – our ref.

118

The M.N.E. bulletin dated May 8, current year, announced from Beirut that the Lebanon government was closely monitoring the news on the “massive emigration of the Eastern European Jews to Israel”. According to the same agency, the “Lebanon government continues its consultations with the other Arab governments on the matter” and its intention was to “submit this serious issue to the Security Council”. Therefore, the Lebanon government contacted the Secretariat General of the Arab League with the proposal to “summon the Political Commission of the League in an emergency meeting where to examine the matter”.

The news was taken over and reproduced by the Damascus press, without any comments for the time being.

3. As resulted from a discussion with the consul of Morocco in Damascus, in the Arab Maghreb (respectively the Arab countries of North Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya), there lived more than 4 500,000, out of which 3,000,000 in Morocco, most of them emigrant Jews that came after and during the W.W.II from Western Europe and which played an important role, today, in the economic and political life of Morocco. According to the opinion of the Moroccan consul, the issue of Jews emigration in the Arab countries of Northern Africa was seen under a totally different point of view than in the U.A.R. and Lebanon.

4. I hereby attach a statistic table [not published – our ref.] regarding the emigration to Israel from the Arab countries, which had been provided to me by the general consul of the P.R. of Hungary from Damascus and which had been drafted according to the “Report of the Executive of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency 1958” yearbook. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1959, unpaged.

75

COMMUNICATION OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV SENT TO VASILE DUMITRESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAI RS OF

ROMANIA, REGARDING THE MESSAGE SENT BY GOLDA MEIR O N THE ISSUE OF FAMILIES’ REUNION

August 13, 1959, Tel Aviv

Allow me to send you a copy of the personal message of Her Excellency Mrs. Golda

Meir, who, in the absence of His Excellency Mr. Minister of Foreign Affairs, I had presented to you during the meeting on August 13, 1959.

I address to you, comrade Minister, the assurance of my respect. Mrs. Meir asked me to send His Excellency her satisfaction with the news on the

reuniting of families. Nevertheless, she regretted the fact the families reunion was done only at a small scale,

especially taking into consideration the high number of tragic cases of disjointed families, cases which had been brought to [her] personal attention by the members of the families who lived in Israel.

She expressed her hope that the Romanian government would speed up the solving of such cases and that the said families would very soon be reunited.

Mrs. Meir also expressed her regret for the fact that no information had been received regarding the four public servants of the Legation who had been arrested several months ago, which matter had been discussed at the right time with His Excellency Mr. Manu. She would welcome any information on that matter. She wanted to remind that the families of those public servants had asked to be allowed to come to Israel, to join them.

119

Mrs. Meir would be very grateful should His Excellency regard that matter favorably.


76

FROM THE INFORMATION NOTE SENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA TO PETRE MANU,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIAN IN TEL AVIV, REGARDING

THE PROGRESS OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONS

No. 8104 March 22, 1960, Bucharest Strict Secret For your information, we communicate the main issues occurred within February 15-

March 20, current year, in the relations between the People’s Republic of Romania and the Vth Division countries.

As you had been informed, on March 5, 1960, comrade Chivu Stoica, president of the Council of Ministers, received S. Bendor1) in a presentation meeting.

The Minister of Israel expressed his gratitude for having been received in the meeting. He declared that not long ago he went to Tel Aviv where he reported to his government on the situation concerning the relations with the People’s Republic of Romania. In that regard, the Israeli Minister declared that he presented his government a bright picture as regard to the relations between Israel and the People’s Republic of Romania. Also, he had sent a message on behalf of the Israeli Prime-Minister, Ben Gurion. The message contained the gratitude for the humanitarianism of the Romanian government with respect to the matter of allowing the Jews in the People’s Republic of Romania to leave for Israel, to reunite with their families2) and, also, it expressed the hope that the rhythm of such departures would be a more sustained one.

Further on, the Israeli Minister presented the main aspects that characterized the good relations between the People's Republic of Romania and Israel; the economic relations went satisfactorily under the trade agreement for the current year, the relations between the Israeli Legation in Bucharest and the Romanian authorities had come to normal, and the rhythm of departures to Israel accelerated.

Yet, Bendor said, there still were some negative aspects concerning the relations between the two countries, in the meaning that out of the 34,000 Jews in Romania that had applied to leave for Israel, only approx. 19,000 had left until that moment, while the three persons, former local servants of the Israeli Legation were still under arrest, and although the government of the P.R. of Romania was known to encourage cultural relations between

1) Samuel (Shmuel) Bendor, Israelí diplomat. He was born in 1909, in Northern Ireland. He attended the University of Liverpool. In 1932 he settled in Palestine. Teacher and deputy headmaster of the Reali School of Haifa (1932-1948), he was a major during the Arab-Israeli war (1948-1949). In 1950 he was appointed director of the U.S. Relations Department within the Israeli M.F.A.. Counsellor in Paris (1954-1957). Extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Prague (1957-1959) and Bucharest (1959-1961). AMFA, founds 10/ Foreign representatives. Israel, f. B-5. 2) When he presented the letters of credence, on March 3, 1959, Acad. Mihail Ralea, Vice-President of the G.N.A Presidium, S. Bendor declared: “My government salutes the humanitarian attitude of the R.P.R. government on the issue of reunification of separated families, attitude that enjoys a general appreciation and sympathy in Israel”.

120

countries, still there were no cultural relations between the People’s Republic of Romania and Israel.

Comrade Chivu Stoica declared that the main aspect related to the departure of the Jews to Israel had been exposed in a number of official statements made by the government of the P.R. of Romania. When the reunion of families was concerned, the government of the P.R. of Romania allowed their departure, based on humanitarian principles. In other cases, though, the departure of Romanian citizens of Jewish origins was not justified. Jews with no families in Israel had been pushed by the Zionist, chauvinistic propaganda to abandon their goods and jobs, in order to leave. Thus, the Zionist propaganda on the foreign radio stations harmed the Jews in Romania.

As regard to the three convicted persons, they were Romanian citizens and had been convicted for having broken the laws of the P.R. of Romania. It remained to be further analyzed what could be done with them. As regard to the forbidden activities of some of the persons within the Israel Legation, comrade Chivu Stoica outlined that the government of the P.R. of Romania could not agree with the attempt of obtaining information from employees of various institutions in the country or to distribute funds. The members of the Israeli Legation, having made use of their position, distributed among the Jewish population from the P.R. of Romania materials that tended to create a climate favourable to departures, even for those who had no justified reasons. Moreover, they tried to obtain information from the employees of various institutions, fact which was surprising, due to the fact that Israel had no intention to attack P.R. of Romania, and neither had P.R. of Romania any similar intention with regard to Israel. The question was whether the information activity was done in somebody else’s interest. Anyway, those practices were not recommendable and were not justified in the relations between the two countries.

The Israeli Minister showed that its government was doing everything possible to prevent any publicity related to the departure of the Romanian Jews to Israel. Attempts would be made to influence accordingly also the Jewish organizations abroad. Further on, he wanted to give assurances that there had never and nowhere been taken any espionage activities by the Israeli Legation to Bucharest for the benefit of the Israeli government or of any other government. As concerned the three convicted persons, he required a deed of pardon.

In conclusion, the Israeli Minister declared that he wanted to focus on two matters - the gratitude of the Israel’s government for the actions of the P.R. of Romania of granting visas for those who wanted to reunite with their families in Israel and the assurance that Israel’s government had done nothing that contravened the Romanian state.

- during a meeting at the M.F.A., Moshe Yegor, secretary II of the Israel’s Legation in Bucharest, informed the M.F.A. that Israel presented its candidacy to the 44th session of the I.L.O. [International Labour Organization] for the position of member or substitute member in the Board of Administration and asked for the support by the Romanian government for that candidacy. Israel candidate for the position currently held by U.A.R., which represented the Near East and Middle East.

No answer was provided. During the same meeting, Moshe Yegor sent an invitation for the relevant Romanian

organizations to participate in an international seminar which would be held in Israel for the national instruction of invalid people.

Such an invitation had been received also from the International Association for Professional Guidance. The invitations had been sent to the Ministry of Health and Social Provisions. [...].


121

77

NOTE OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE RELATIONS WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL

September 5, 1960, Bucharest

The relations with Israel continued to be characterized as reserved from our side, due to

the adventurous and provocative policy of the Israeli leading groups. The Israeli government attempted several times to initiate discussions concerning the

issue of “family reunion” . In that respect, in 1957, Ben Gurion addressed to comrade Chivu Stoica a message to which no reply was provided1).

After the AGERPRES Declaration dated February 1959, Golda Meir came back on the issue of “family reunion”, giving thanks for the way our government dealt with that issue. Also, she intervened for the freedom of some former servants in the Israeli Legation, who had been arrested for activities against our state’s security. Interventions were made both by means of our legation in Tel Aviv, and through their Minister in Bucharest. On the occasion of those interviews, Golda Meir insisted especially on the freeing of former servant of the Israeli Legation in Bucharest, Elisabeta Weiss, whose husband was living in Israel and who was the niece of Theodor Hertzel, founder of the Zionist movement.

Recently the Israeli authorities and even the Minister of Foreign Affairs in person made repeated statements to our Minster in Israel, proving a sustained attempt to demonstrate that the Israeli government conspicuously wished to avoid any deterioration of the relations between the two countries. The press campaign against our country had ceased and the measures taken by our government in the issue of “family reunion” were seen as favorable. The Israeli government declared itself to be quite satisfied with the current development of the relations between the two countries.

Yet, the Israeli Legation in Bucharest continued to pose as “representative” of the Jewish minority in our country.

Despite all the repeated warnings given by the M.F.A. to the Israeli Legation in Bucharest, its members, led by the head of mission, while abusing the immunity and diplomatic privileges, had violated our laws by producing Zionist agitation among the Romanian citizens of Jewish nationality, especially in synagogues. Minister Bendor abusively tried to participate in the small ceremony which took place that year in June, at the Jewish cemetery in Iaşi, although he had not been invited. Also, the members of the Israeli Legation tried to attract some Romanian citizens into espionage and diversion activities, to transform them into colporteurs of letter of the order given by the international Zionist groups, into currency traffickers etc.

Over the past two years, our authorities had to declare as “persona non grata” a number of four diplomats of the Legation in Bucharest. At the same time, our state bodies took measures to prevent or limit the propaganda and the licit trafficking activities to which some of the diplomats and servants of the Israeli Legation appealed to in connection to the departures of some citizens to Israel. Those restrictions had been later on lifted.

The Israeli authorities, although they protested and denied the accusations brought to the four Israeli diplomats expelled from the P.R.R., did not take countermeasures except for one case, by arbitrarily expelling in 1958 the Secretary II of the P.R.R. Legation in Tel Aviv.

In order to put an end to the activities of stirring the Jewish population to leave to Israel, by visiting synagogues, in July, the current year, the Israeli minister was communicated the

1) See doc. no. 67 (the response draft – our ref.).

122

that it would be desired for the Legation members to visit one single synagogue in Bucharest. Related to that measure, in turns, Bendor expressed his disapproval with the M.F.A., while Golda Meir to our Minister in Tel Aviv, asking for the restriction to be lifted, otherwise it would prejudice the opportunities of the Legation members to exercise their creed and both of them expressed their hope that the restrictions would be lifted before the autumn Jewish holidays. They hadn’t been lifted yet.

The special interests that Israel had, regarding the relations with the P.R.R., and against which it wished for no deterioration thereof, arose from the following:

a. Maintaining contacts with the Jewish population in our country and assuring the emigration of the Jews from the P.R.R. to Israel. The yearly number of emigrants worldwide was calculated to 35,000 persons in the five-year plan presented to the Knesset by the Israeli government.

b. Maintaining, and possibly, increasing the amount of trade exchanges. Israel was especially interested in the imports of crude oil and resin lumber from the P.R.R.

Trade relations were based on the Trade Agreement (concluded in 1954 and annually renewed), the volume of which suffered an increase from 2.5 million dollars in 1954 to 4.5 million dollars in 1957-1958, dropping then to 3 million dollars in 1959. Although in 1960 the volume of trade exchanges remained formally at the level of the one from 1959, in fact it was much lower; it was estimated at approx. 2 million dollars. Israel’s demands with respect to crude-oil and resin-lumber had never been satisfied.

c. strengthening Israel’s international position as compared to the Arab countries, by means of apparent good relations with the socialist countries.

Cultural relations with Israel were inexistent. We did not have a cultural agreement and Israel’s repeated proposals had never been answered, due to the reciprocity demands imposed. The cultural and popularization activity of P.R.R. in Israel was performed exclusively through the Israel-P.R.R. Friendship League, which organized a series of positive actions, especially among those with origins in our country. Still due to the reciprocity requests, the distribution of books in Israel on trade grounds was still under the demands level.

There was one ardent problem regarding our relations with Israel, namely that of the real estates in Jerusalem that belonged to the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchy. The Israeli authorities replied favourably to our demand to transfer those goods – which had previously been on the name of a Romanian priest [Titus Simedrea], in the property of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchy. Yet, the real estate goods continued to be requisitioned for the needs of the Israeli Minister of Cults. Their evacuation had been demanded.

As regarded its relations with the socialist camp, Israel followed closely the line of the

American policy and, therefore, did not have diplomatic relations with all the socialist countries. At Tel Aviv the U.S.S.R. had an embassy and an ambassador. The other friend countries had legations, led, as followed: Poland – by a minister, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary – by Charges d’affaires.

The relations with the U.S.S.R. were strictly formal. There were no cultural, scientific, trade relations or of other type whatsoever. Trade exchanges consisted only of sales of books, publications and Soviet films in Israel.

Israel continued to feed the anti-Soviet campaign both through its representatives, and by means of the World Zionist Organization. Golda Meir officially declared from the Knesset tribune that the U.S.S.R. was discrediting Israel. The Israeli press called the U.S.S.R. as “the persecution centre of the Jews worldwide” .

Israel’s trade relations with Poland were based on an agreement of 7 million dollars for both parties. Among the socialist countries, Israel also had trade agreements with the P.R. of Bulgaria and the P.R. of Hungary.

123

Israeli leaders were trying to demonstrate, in their statements, that there would be a differentiated position of the socialist countries, with regard to Israel. They invoked, not just once, as an example, Poland’s position, which was one of the countries that Israel had “the best relations” with; lately they also referred to the “good relations with the P.R.R.”

In June current year, in a meeting held at the M.F.A., Bendor was unofficially interested in whether the criminal archives of the P.R.R. contained materials that might have been helpful in constructing the accusation deed against the Hitlerian war criminal Adolf Eichmann2). He also stated that, should such material be found, the Israeli government would officially ask for their copies. In August, Bendor went back on that matter. He was replied that our bodies were doing research on whether during the trials of war criminals, material evidences had been produced on the criminal activity of Eichmann and his accomplices.

Similar proceedings had been undertaken by Israel with the other socialist countries, too, proposing to send the police inspector Abraham Sellinger to study the existent documents. Concerning those proceedings, the M.F.A. of the P.R. of Hungary proposed a deliberation in order to find a common position. The proposal was still under analysis at the M.F.A.


78

GENERAL REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON

THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISR AEL

December 31, 1960, Tel Aviv

I. Internal political situation a) The internal political life of the period was dominated at first by the action of MAPAI

Party to change the current electoral law, then by the so-called “Lavon case”. As you know, MAPAI Party, and firstly B. Gurion, proposed as main task, immediately

after the general election, to modify the current law, based on the principle of proportionality, with a new one based on the territorial principle. For this purpose there were prepared a number of proposals, both from MAPAI, as well as from Zionist Generals.

The goal pursued by B. Gurion is to eliminate from the Parliament a number of small parties (among which ICP), which currently have between 3-8 members and to make pressure on Ahdut Haavoda Party and MAPAM to accept the unification of the three Zionist Labour parties.

This action of MAPAI resulted in the closing of ranks among all parties (government and opposition) which constituted a committee to defend the electoral system. This committee consists of the representatives of seven parliamentary factions, who have 57 votes out of 120 in the Knesset.

b) While the tension among this committee increases, “Lavon case” was brought on the agenda, which got the entire attention of the public for nearly four months.

2) Adolf Eichmann’s trial took place within Apr. 11-Dec. 15, 1961 in Jerusalem. Eichmann, former SS officer and important member of the Nazi police and secret services, was sent to an American camp after the war. He managed to escape, and after several years of wandering he arrived in Argentina. On May 11, 1960, the Mossad agents arrested him near the Argentinean capital and managed to take him out of the country. Trialled by a tribunal from Jerusalem, he was sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity being executed at the end of March 1962.

124

“Lavon case” is a matter of dispute that lasted till 1955, when Lavon was dismissed from the Ministry of National Defence, following the manoeuvres of B. Gurion and of the military clique gathered around him.

Pinchas Lavon was then accused of instructing the military intelligence authorities to generate attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and Alexandria in order to damage the Egyptian-American relations. As the bombers were caught, someone had to pay the price. And Pinchas Lavon was the one.

By a coincidence, a senior officer who was prosecuted for another offence (and later sentenced to 12 years), said that in “Lavon case” there were false testimonies and documents were forged in order to compromise Lavon.

B. Gurion, who was directly targeted, appoints a commission of inquiry – “Cohen Commission” – to investigate Lavon case and his rehabilitation. In this context, the 1955 problem is reopened while simultaneously the contradictions within the party MAPAI have emerged.

After long discussions, public and media prosecution, in the Security and foreign policy Committee of the Knesset, the whole matter is entrusted to a ministerial commission consists of seven ministers from all government parties.

The “Commission of seven” has submitted its report to the Council of Ministers on December 25, and it unanimously approved its conclusions, acting to consider, “Lavon case” permanently closed. The “Commission of seven” concluded that:

a. It turned out that Pinchas Lavon did not order the execution of the “unfortunate case”. b. Different personalities whose names have been mentioned in connection with the

“case” had nothing to do with this. c. There is no need for a new investigation into the case, outside the judicial proceedings

against those who were found guilty of forgery. The Council of Ministers approved that “Lavon case” to be permanently closed. B.

Gurion, Moshe Dayan, Abba Eban and Joseftal [Giora, 1912-1962] abstained. This shows that the “Lavon case” is not closed. In fact, it cannot be, because the objective conditions that caused it were not eliminated.

These contradictions being as follows: The contradiction between MAPAI (B. Gurion) and the Histadrut. MAPAI group, led by

B. Gurion, fights to reduce the state influence of Histadrut. On various occasions, B. Gurion publicly declared that, in the current situation, the state is the one incumbent with the mission to defend the general interests. From there, the claim that Histadrut is subordinate to the state, government discipline, respectively to B. Gurion.

In his turn, P. Lavon and MAPAI group leading the Histadrut are opposing and will still oppose. They declare themselves against those who believe “the state as the body which must include all actions and develop creative nation.” During these disputes, Lavon attacked B. Gurion and his military clique, making it clear that the army would be a danger to Israeli democracy and that he fights to defend this democracy from the danger of B. Gurion, Dayan, Peres, etc. In this fight, Lavon is supported by some members of MAPAI Secretariat (Golda Meir, Sapir, etc.), a number of political parties which are for an independent Histadrut (Ahdut Haavoda, MAPAM) and other mass organizations.

This contradiction is known as the battle between vatikimi (elders of MAPAI) and the youth, leaded by Simon Peres and Dayan, supported by B. Gurion.

The second contradiction within MAPAI is around the foreign policy of Israel. A faction of MAPAI, led by Moshe Sharett, is for a more moderate, yet disciplined pro-American policy, meaning under the service of a single employer. B. Gurion advocated a line of manoeuvring between different imperialist countries. He envisages a conspiracy not only with the U.S.A., but also with France, Federal Germany and England. These contradictions are an

125

old subject in MAPAI and are made public. Yet, in “Lavon case”, they have reached a level of tension so that the fracture in MAPAI was considered “imminent”.

It is difficult to make an accurate assessment of how the crisis within map would end. Ben Gurion is decided to remove Lavon, to concentrate on his hands and the ones of a

group of soldiers around him, the full power of the state and MAPAI Party. This trend of B. Gurion opposes, for the moment, an important faction in MAPAI. The

outcome depends mostly on the latter’s decision to fight against B. Gurion, whose prestige has fallen following the disclosures around “Lavon case.”

Regarding the rest of the coalition and opposition parties, one could note on this occasion that they oppose the concentration of power in the hands of B. Gurion.

Ahdut Haavoda, MAPAM, Heruth, Klal-Zionists defended Lavon, in whom they saw, at that time, the defender of democracy in Israel.

Between the various Zionist “labourist” and bourgeois parties in Israel, in general, there are divergent views on various internal policy issues (“Lavon case”), economic (wage increase, foreign trade policy) or foreign policy aspects.

All these “divergences” have more an “electoral” objective to create the illusion of a completely different conception “among different Zionist Labourist Parties,” but, in fact, the general line of B. Gurion policy, both internally and externally, is supported by all Zionist parties, either “labourist” or bourgeois. If the situation would be like the representatives of these parties spoke about, then both MAPAM and Ahdut Haavoda should leave the coalition government. This is only not about ideological reasons, but for reasons to be partakers to the “benefits of power” in the state.

II. Social-economic situation Israel’s economic dependence on the international capital is widening every year in

increasing proportions. Foreign capital investments increased by 400% compared to the past, being strongly supported by Israel Treasury. Industrial Investment Centre approved recently private foreign investment worth 83 million $, plus 45 million Israeli £, plus 81.7 million Israeli £ loan granted to these companies by the state.

To bring in foreign capital, the government grants advantages competing only with those of the colonial countries. This year, the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Commerce and Development carried out long tours abroad to bring in foreign capital to Israel. Israel continues its policy of selling its industrial businesses that bring advantages to the foreign capital. Now, there are sold the phosphate companies from the Dead Sea.

The World Bank, to whom Israel addressed to, referred the offer to other private banks, Lazaire brothers and the “First Bank of Boston”, which put the following conditions: U.S. banks possess 60% of the shares, 30% private Israeli capital and State 10%, the total investment will be of 11 million $, divided over 5 years with an interest rate of 7%, the interdiction to extract magnesium and join other foreign capital. The publishing of the conditions posed by these banks caused protests in the Knesset and the media, and the transaction is not completed yet. However, the conditions posed by these banks are enlightening. Also on this occasion, the World Bank sent Prof. Tenenbaum to Israel, on behalf of the International collaboration Directorate of US Government. In his report, Tenenbaum, referring to foreign capital penetration in Israel, writes “private initiatives and foreign investments bloom in Israel as they never did it before, encouraging private equity investment, local and foreign, represents the cornerstone of the government’s economic policy”.

Besides a certain control of the Bank of Israel over the commercial banks in terms of loans granting, in fact, it was actually eliminated the internal control of the state, the foreign currency import control still exists, but in most cases is only a formality.

126

He criticized the Director of the Bank of Israel and his financial policy and recommends the bank credit expansion without fear of worsening the inflation. The Minister of Industry, Sapir, supported the view of Tenenbaum, thus being known as “Tenenbaum-Sapir Report”.

Israel’s economic situation can be evaluated mostly from the report of the Director of the Bank of Israel. He submitted to the Finance Commission of the Knesset a report that shows the economic situation and state finances. His conclusions are somewhat more realistic and oppose the so-called policy of “liberalization” of trade and credit, which “alienates us from the economic independence” and leads to “inflation”. Among other things, the report says that Israeli economic trends have not changed and one still cannot speak of a solution to the fundamental problem of this economy. The trade deficit reached 113.7 million $, increasing for the period January-September 1960 with $ 12.5 million over the corresponding period last year. The money market has developed at an alarming rate; the means of payment have increased by 15%, from 725.9 million to 843.3 million Israeli pounds in the last 7 months.

Currency reserves are still quite low in relation to the foreign trade of the country. At the current volume of 200 million $, Israeli foreign trade reserves equivalent to about 4 months of imports, while according to the International Monetary Fund it should be in an appropriate amount to cover imports for at least six months. In 1960 as imports are expected to exceed the amount of 600 million $, current reserves are inadequate, if one takes into account the rather extensive external debts of Israel.

In terms of global industrial production, this increased by 10-11%, the production value reaching 920 million Israeli pounds to 140 million pounds more than last year. The number of people employed in industry increased by 6.7% and in most of the sectors the increment for hand labour was less than the productivity increase. Banking income increased by 77.4%, net income increased from 4.6 to 8.8 million pounds in 1959. Other sources of information show that the revenues of various industrial enterprises also increased. Thus, American paper companies in Hedera achieved a profit growth of 39% in two years: “Rassco Cu” Company 100%; “Amcor” Company had a profit of 3 million to 1.2 million invested capital, i.e. 25%; “Kaiser-Fraiser” a profit of 80%, and “General Tyres” in three years increased its profit by 333%. Private consumption increased by 7.8%, exports increased by 18% and imports by 16% in first 9 months of 1960, investment in construction of housing was £ 63.5 million compared to 84 million in the corresponding period last year.

Bank of Israel report on wages admits that “there has been no change in the salary of the workers, so there was an increase of the industry revenue.” On the other hand, Tenenbaum noted regarding this “Histadrut worked to avoid unjustified wage increases to an extent which may be difficult to find similarities with any other place in the world, the wage increase did not meet the pace of the work efficiency increase”.

Over the past two years, the national income increased by 20%. Although the report asserts an increase in household consumption by 7-8%, it does not

specify the composition of the “population”. It is obvious that this was done intentionally to mask the true situation of the working

class. The official data show that two thirds of all workers live on a wage below the minimum.

Average daily wages of industrial worker fell from $ 7.12 in 1949 to 4.20 dollars in 1960, i.e. a decrease of 41%.

While wages have not been changed for two years, prices of various consumer goods, transport, post office etc. permanently increased. In the second half of 1960, the prices of several products rose as follows: milk with 2 agurot per litter, sugar by 17 pounds per ton (they cancelled sugar rations with reduced price for children), fruits and vegetables by 17,5%,

127

children’s footwear 12%, transport with 12%, postal tariffs by 8%, tobacco 7.7%, etc. For 1961, the government announced price increases for several goods.

This situation is reflected also in the intensity of the fight between capital and labour, manifested by the number of strikes that took place during this period.

Of these, for illustration, we would like to recall the teachers’ strike, the strikes of the workers of Histadrut enterprises, like: “Alliance” tire factory in Hedera, Acco steel enterprises, Juval-Gad and Lavidim factories in Migdal Askelan; Hevrat Hachshamal factory near Ashdod; American shoe factory in Jerusalem, etc.

From these few data, it results that, in terms of the Israeli economy, we are witnessing an increase in the global industrial production, labour productivity, exports, imports and the entry of foreign capital in Israel.

The entry of international capital under the financial and industrial form increases the political dependency of Israel in relation to this capital. Meanwhile, profits that foreign capitalists pull out, the conditions set for granting loans, increasing spending on armaments result in a permanent decrease of the real salary of the masses of working people as proven by the data presented.

However, if Israel holds up and does not go economically bankrupt, this is explained only by the massive economic support of the Jews around the world and mainly from USA and England, external loans from different countries (especially the USA, Federal Germany) and the German Federal repairs.

III. Foreign policy Israel is geographically located in Asia, yet it enjoys declaring itself as the “foothold of

the European civilized world” in this part of the world. Israel’s foreign policy efforts were directed and continue to be directed towards the strengthening of the connections with the North Atlantic Pact powers

To this end, Israel has tried many times to be accepted as a member of the pact in its capacity as “Mediterranean country”, such Turkey or Greece.

For various reasons, the Western powers did not accept Israel’s request to be officially and openly accepted in N.A.T.O., but they sought to use Israel’s geographical position and history of Palestine, “the former country under mandate” for their purposes in the political fight against the countries in Africa and Asia who are gaining their national independence. Meanwhile, Israel has received the right to send an observer to meetings of N.A.T.O. and discuss its acceptance, either in the Common Market or in the Free Trade Area of the seven. In fact, Israel expects the implementation of Dillon1) plan to “unify” the “two markets” under USA auspices. The close ties between Israel and N.A.T.O., based on common economic interests, is reflected faithfully in Israel’s foreign policy. It is enough to make a brief review and analysis of the major international events that occurred during this period and to compare them with the position taken by Israel in this respect to clearly see this. Our relations with the U.S.A., said Golda Meir, based on friendship and trust, constitutes the foundation of our foreign policy.

Supported by N.A.T.O powers and the worldwide Jewry, Israel strengthens its diplomatic relations with all the countries around the world to counter the isolation created by the Arabs in the region. Israel has relations with all countries in Europe, except for Spain, Portugal and Albania, and almost all of them to the level of embassy. The same can be said about the two Americas. Regarding Asia, on this continent, the relations are closely connected to the U.S.A. and England, while in Africa, also with the support of the French, Belgian and 1) Douglas D. Dillon (b. 1907), American banker and diplomat. Ambassador in Paris (1953-1957). Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1957-1959); Minister of Finance (1961-1965).

128

English imperialists, Israel has infiltrated (and the process is on-going) in the former French colonies in Africa, especially those belonging to the “French community”. Israel now has diplomatic ties with 70 countries.

a) Israel’s attitude towards different international events

The participation of Comrade Khrushchev in the U.N. session, as well as of other

representatives of the socialist bloc sought to be minimized either by the silence accompanying this event in Israel or by the news media slander that brought about this historic event .

The press only partial and tendentious, libellous published the speeches. About Comrade Khrushchev’s speech was written that it was “a real declaration of war against the United Nations”, leaving behind a dark atmosphere of crisis at the U.N. headquarters. Comrade Khrushchev also experience at the U.N. a cold and hostile atmosphere. No active politician said one word about the historical significance of the current U.N. session or showed the contribution of Comrade Khrushchev and of other socialist bloc delegates to solving the fundamental problems of our era.

Golda Meir spoke about Israel’s attitude towards the international problems on the agenda, saying that Israel examines each issue separately and in view of its interests and is not related to any of the U.N. She defined Israel’s policy as “unaligned, which does not mean “neutral”, because Israel, she added, would not be neutral towards the vital issues discussed at the UN. This new “definition” of the Israeli foreign policy was considered by the bourgeois newspaper “Haboker” as being influenced by the emergence of the new states in Africa and by the UN. “An uncompromising tone could help the Nasser propaganda among the peoples of Africa,” noted the newspaper. Moreover, Golda Meir said to U.N. “Israel considers itself as being part of the bloc of the Afro-Asian bloc member countries”. The purpose of these statements is to gain the trust of the new African countries at the UN. In fact, Israel’s position toward these countries is reflected by the attitude adopted in relation to various problems of those countries.

Thus, regarding “Congo problem” Israel voted against recognizing the legitimate government of Lumumba2) and the Israel’s media denigrated the Soviet Union, which threatens with an intervention in Congo.

Regarding Algeria, Golda Meir said that an independent Algeria will automatically join the anti-Israeli bloc (and this precisely seems to be happening). Consequently, the Israeli delegation to UN supported the French view on the Algerian issue. Israeli media brags that Israel’s UN vote decided in favour of the French view.

In terms of the general and complete disarmament, Golda Meir, in her speech to the U.N., stated some vague phrases, avoiding the problem and came up with the “proposal” of stopping the “cold war” for a while, concluding that the plan proposed by Mac Millan3) for the disarmament is the most acceptable one.

On top of this added Israeli diversion, respectively that Israel proposed for this purpose the complete disarmament of Israel and the Arab countries under mutual control.

2) Patrice Lumumba (1925-1961), Congolese politician. Prime Minister (Jun. 30-Sept. 5, 1960). Dismissed and then arrested following a military coup d’état (Dec. 1960) he was, according to the official version, transferred in Katanga and afterwards killed during an escape attempt. 3) Harold Maurice MacMillan (1894-1986), British politician, leader of the Conservative Party. Member of the House of Commons (1924-1929, 1931-1964). Minister of Defence (1954), Secretary of State within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Apr.-Dec. 1955), Chancellor of the Exchequer (1955-1957). Prime Minister (Jan. 10, 1957-Oct. 18, 1963).

129

Regarding the restructuring of the U.N. Secretariat, “my government – said Golda Meir – believes that he (Hammarskjöld)4) fulfilled in the most conscientious way his job in Congo”, and that the “Office of the General Secretariat must be kept in its current form”, while the “Soviet proposal of restructuring would mean anarchy “.

In terms of P.R. of China admission to the U.N., Israel has refrained from voting, maintaining its old position, although some political parties in the government – MAPAM and Ahdut Haavoda – urged the Government to vote for the admission to the U.N. of the P.R. of China. These data show that, although for tactical reasons Israel sought to create the impression in the world public opinion that it keeps its independence regarding its vote at the U.N., however, when it came to voting, Israel was found, as expected, on the side of N.A.T.O. imperialists.

b. Relations with the Afro-Asian countries

Israeli diplomatic activities to expand its relations with the Afro-Asian countries

continued intensively. The goal of Israel is to create political and market connections for the export of industrial products and the import of raw materials from these countries.

Besides this, Israel, as reflected in the official statements both from the imperialists as well as from the Israeli side, has assumed the role of preventing and defending the “young state” against the danger of “Soviet infiltration”. As the newspaper “Haaretz” writes, during the talks Eisenhower-Ben Gurion, there was discussed also the problem of the Soviet infiltration and influence in the young states of the African continent. B. Gurion explained to Eisenhower the importance given by the Western world to Israel influence on these states. On the other hand, Golda Meir declares “Western powers pay a great importance to the connections between Israel and the countries of Africa”. A senior official of Israeli M.F.A, former Ambassador in an Asian country, during a press conference said: “The contribution of Israel to prevent communist domination is one of the main goals of the Afro-Asian policy of B. Gurion government. Israel’s main goal in Asia should be fighting against the communist threat. It is clear that the central goal in the fight against the communist threat is U.S.A.”, concluded the Israeli diplomat. Why imperialists thought that Israel is the one for this job? The answer to this question is given by England’s Ambassador in Israel, who said “in the competition between the two blocs to conquer the soul of the new Asia and Africa peoples, Israel voice enjoys more importance, since these people also tend to pay attention to this voice without identifying it with the «imperialism» or «colonialism» or assigning any other quality that is attributed to the «old countries»”. These few quotes define Israeli policy objective in the Asian and African countries and reveal who is behind this objective.

To strengthen and develop these relationships, especially in the second half of the year, Finance Minister of Israel, Eshkol, the Minister of Labour, Joseftal, and Agriculture Minister, Moshe Dayan, visited a number of countries in Africa.

The countries visited by the Israeli Ministers are, as a whole (except Ethiopia) either English or French communities. On this occasion, Eshkol has signed an agreement with Nigeria, given 10 million $ loans, half in cash and half in goods and raw materials. The rest of the visited countries, negotiations were held to facilitate the access of the Israeli capital, in various forms, in the economy of these countries.

As a general rule, Israel access in the form of construction works joint venture, works of water supply of cities, irrigation, agriculture, and as specialists in various state areas: doctors, financial consultants, transport experts, aviation, education, merchants, pharmacists,

4) Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961), Swedish diplomat. Secretary General of U.N. (1953-1961). Nobel Prize for Peace (1961).

130

charity nurses [caretaker], education, upper technical education, etc. (for more precise data see the special report)*.

For winning the goodwill of those countries, Israel grants scholarships in its higher education schools. Thus, Eshkol awarded 100 scholarships to students from Congo (formerly Belgian).

With the support of the imperialists, Israel founded, near Histadrut, a school for communal activists, union etc. of the Afro-Asian countries. The school was inaugurated on November 1 and has a total of 65 students. Also, in August, it organized a so-called scientific international conference (see special report), whose proposals Golda Meir sought to bring into discussion in the U.N. Social Commission, as an Israeli proposal to support the Afro-Asian countries.

Also, Israel is visited by the members of the government in these countries, bank governors, ministerial delegations and states presidents. The number of such visits is quite large and one can say that 10-12 days do not go by without the media to announce the visit of some figure from these countries, as a guest of the government, the Histadrut, the Bank of Israel, etc.

From these visits, I would like to mention the one of the President of the French Congo, Abbé Youlou5) and the government delegation from Mali. With Mali, there were concluded several economic and technical collaboration agreements. A success of the Israeli foreign policy is represented by the strengthening of its political relations with Iran, which after becoming public, following the statement of the Shah6) led to the well-known crisis between U.A.R. and Iran.

It is difficult to make an accurate assessment of the volume of Israel economic-commercial relations with these countries, nor in terms of the solidness of political relations between these countries and Israel, as the official circles kept the secret on these issues, and the media exaggerates with the obvious purpose to justify to the Israeli public and those financing Israel for this purpose.

However, following the visits of Eshkol and Joseftal and the recent developments in this field, it results that Israel’s successes are not quite so big as described by the media.

In this context have aroused the contradictions between Israel, as an imperialist state or N.A.T.O. imperialist agent and various African countries, and secondly between Israeli capital and the English one on the market of these states.

Thus, to most of the African countries’ congresses are voted resolutions, presenting Israel in its true light. Last congress in Addis Ababa voted also such a resolution.

In Ghana, during a strike of a Ghanaian-Israeli joint venture, among other claims, the workers demanded that Israelis directors to return home. Joseftal, following his visit to Africa, said that all Israel’s bragging about the support offered to these countries, does not bring benefits to Israel, but irritates African leaders. From the discussions that I had with various people from the African countries visiting Israel, result that many officials conclude that Israel is only a tool in the hands of the imperialists.

Israel got a bitter blow from Ceylon, who severed its relations with Israel, saying that the main reason is to avoid deterioration of its relations with the Arab countries due to the relations with Israel.

* Will not be published – our ref. 5) Abbé Fulbert Youlou (1917-1972), Congolese politician; mayor of Brazzaville (Nov. 1956), after the proclamation of the Republic, as the head of the government he promoted an authoritarian regime, overthrown on Aug. 15, 1963. 6) Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980), Shah-an-shah of Iran (1941-1979), the oldest son of Reza Shah Pahlavi, the founder of the dynasty (1925). After 1960, he promoted a significant opening in the relations with the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern European countries.

131

Ghana declined to extend the Convention on Israeli Aviation instructors. For this purpose, it released an official statement announcing, at the same time, as commander of the Ghana aviation a British man. This act of Ghana upset even more Israel, which considers the behaviour of British not only dishonest, but hostile too. The newspaper “Davar” paper writes that British activity has taken on much more drastic proportions in the economic circles who oppose Israeli access in Africa and Asia. In conclusion, the paper writes bitterly “there is no guarantee that the Births will be able to keep out they get from our hands”.

Therefore, it results that, although apparently, the Israeli-imperialist symbiosis would have a harmonious life in the body of new African countries, however, in reality, there are contradictions between them, and this, historically, can only deepen. To these add up the contradictions between the new countries and Israel, countries that as politically and economically develop, realize the role of Israel.

However, we must not underestimate the fact that until then Israel may create obstacles in the liberation fight of these countries and its activity so far in this area had a positive outcome. From this point of view, especially Israel supports France to create an Afro-Asian bloc, in the spirit of the Brazzaville Conference, designed to deepen and strengthen the gap between the Afro-Asian peoples.

c. Relations with the Arab countries

In the last six months, there have been recorded only small border incidents (with the

U.A.R), which did not have any significance. Past problems between Israel and Arab countries remained unchanged. On one hand, the

Arab countries’ position, and especially of U.A.R. which refuse to recognize the existence of Israel, and on the other hand, Israel’s attitude on solving the problem of the Arab refugees and setting the borders of the state. Statements made by the president of the state, by Golda Meir in the U.N and by [Michael] Comay, Israeli representative to the U.N. [1960-1967] all show that Israel maintains its position vigorously that the Arab refugee problem must be sought only in the Arab countries. The Arab refugee problem said Ben-Zvi, the President of the State, is a matter of “population exchange” and they must be located with the assistance of the U.N., in the countries where they are now.

On the other hand, Israel claims to be understanding regarding the reunification of Arab refugee families and that it allowed, until now, over 30 000 people come to Israel.

To solve the problem, Israel has proposed both in the U.N., as well as on other occasions, direct negotiations with Arab states, without mediators and without preconditions.

This Israeli proposal has its target. First, Israel is convinced that Nasser and no other Arab leader can accept negotiations, which were not previously prepared by a third party. Secondly, if against all reasons Nasser would accept it, regardless of the outcome of negotiations, the mere acceptance to speak to a state whose existence is not recognized means a victory for the Israeli side. Israel, however, may not want a solution to its dispute with Arab countries because, in the best-case scenario for Israel, it will mean concessions in the problem of refugees and borders. However, Israel does not want this at all.

Moreover, this fact clearly results, also, from the concerns generate in Israel by the statements made by Dr. [John H.] Davis, Director of U.N. Agency for Social Assistance to Arab refugees and by Shukairi7) proposals within the U.N., regarding the appointment of a trustee in Israel for Arab refugees possessions and, especially, by the future attitude of the U.S. government in relation to the problems in the Middle East.

7) Ahmed Shukairi (1908-1980), Arab lawyer. Saudi politician, permanent representative to the U.N. (1957-1962) and afterwards founder and first leader of P.L.O. (1963-1967), succeeded by Yasser Arafat.

132

Dr. Davis has been the subject of fierce attacks in the press because in his report he wrote that the Arab refugee problem cannot be solved within the current borders as refugees want to return to their homeland and are not willing to accept another solution.

Shukairi’s proposal, the delegate of Saudi Arabia, was fiercely rejected, being considered as a violation of state sovereignty, unacceptable, and absurd. A series of meetings between Golda Meir and the Ambassadors of U.S.A. and England in Israel allowed postponing of the discussions on the issue until the U.N. session will begin, in March 1961.

What gives headaches to the current government of Israel is the question: what will Kennedy8) on this matter? Will he implement the plan submitted by Hammerskjoeld-Fulbright?9) As it turns out, the future Kennedy government intends to do so, they have already started the preparations for this purpose.

The Hammarskjöld-Fulbright Report provides the return in Israel of 100-120 000 Arab refugees, while the rest to receive compensation. Israel will have to accept the establishment of borders, which will take into account of this reality.

Americans would be willing to give a loan for the development of Arab countries for the economic absorption of the refugees and to grant, at the same time, and a loan to Israel to pay for the damages. U.S.A. would contribute to the Jordan Valley irrigation project; the river water will be divided between Israel and Arab countries.

U.S.A. will ensure the borders between Israel and the Arab countries, after the final borders will be drawn and accepted by both parties. This American proposal is considered as an “Israeli diplomatic concession and a real Arab attitude” [realistic – our ref.].

It is believed that lately the U.S.A. have exercised insistent pressures near the Israeli government and Arab countries to accept a compromise, even before the beginning of the talks on the Middle East, which Kennedy intends to launch at the White House, immediately after his installation.

Also, the visit to Israel of John Lindsay (Member of the Legal Committee of the House of Representatives in the U.S.) and the talks with Golda Meir and B. Gurion had the same goal. In fact, he said to the press that the “American Congress came to the edge of patience in the Arab refugee problem”.

To this should be also added Kennedy’s personal attitude of 1957 in relation to the problems from the M[iddle] E[ast] and that of Adlai Stevenson10). During the Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt, Kennedy proposed a four-point program for a lasting peace in the Middle East.

a. An international commission will have to decide permanent borders for Israel, notwithstanding the emotional demands and without giving to any party all that it wants.

b. Israel must accept the return, in the shortest time possible, of those Arab refugees who accept Israeli citizenship and all that it implies; those who do not accept are to be settled in the Arab countries.

c. Free movement through Suez. d. Setting up the grounds for a general development of the region Stevenson took the same stand. Hence, Israel’s concern, especially as to this it is added

the fact that some Democrats leaders were upset about the way in which some Israeli

8) John Fitzgerald Kennedy (J.F.K.) (1917-1963), President of the U.S.A.(1960-1963). 9) James William Fulbright (1905-1976), American politician. Senator (1944-1974) and president of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1957-1974); initiator of the popular international cultural exchange program that named after him. 10) Adlai Ewing Stevenson (1900-1965), American politician and diplomat. Governor of Illinois (1949-1952). Candidate of the Democratic Party for the presidential elections in 1952 and 1958; ambassador to the U.N. (1961-1965).

133

newspapers intervened in the elections and tried to win votes for Nixon11). Moreover, some members of the Israeli Embassy in U.S.A. were accused of the same thing. This has forced Golda Meir to officially deny this.

In this context, the Israeli diplomacy acts. It will use all available resources - including those from U.S.A. – to prevent the discussion of the American plan.

On the other hand, U.S.A. will have to face the reluctance of both the Arabs and Israeli in settling the Israeli-Arab dispute.

Therefore, all the conditions are met so that the “plan” to remain in its initial phase as a plan, although U.S.A. interest is to create an Israeli-Arab peace, which would facilitate the access to the Arab world.

d. Israel’s relations with the Soviet bloc

1. Soviet Union Relations between the Soviet Union and Israel continue to maintain the line of

diplomatic relations, fair, distant, with the same hostile anti-Soviet attitude manifested by Israel.

Cultural relations based on reciprocity do not exist. The Soviet Union invites to its international congresses Israeli scientists, not conducting a discriminatory policy toward Israel. Thus, for this period, there were invited, to Moscow, Israelis specialists at the International Congress of Orientalism or the Congress of polio. Also, it invites scientists on the line of Academy and other specialized institutes.

Also, the Soviet Union sent delegates to a Physiology congress held in Jerusalem, but refuses to participate in congresses called “scientific”, but which, in fact, pursue a political goal: Rehovot conference, for example.

Through the Israel – Soviet Union Friendship League, cultural activities are carried out and the Soviet book is spread into “LEPAC” library, to the extent that Israel allows it. On commercial line, there are showed Soviet movies, which enjoyed great success. Commercial relations are almost inexistent.

The Soviet Union, through its media, especially “Izvestia” and Radio Moscow, broadcasts in Arabic, exposing B. Gurion’s war plans.

Regarding Israel, it does not stop leading the defamation action against the Soviet Union, which is controlled by the U.S Pentagon and the Bundeswehr of Adenauer12). This campaign is carried out through the press in Israel and abroad, through official statements in public meetings, congresses and Knesset. For this period, we mention the Paris Conference of the “World Jewry defending the rights of Jews in the Soviet Union”. Nahum Goldman convened this conference at the suggestion and insistence of B. Gurion. As we know, the first was an agent of the Bundeswehr until the end of the First World War and now of the State Department and the Pentagon. The conference urged the Soviet Union for the right of free emigration of Jews to Israel, “cultural freedom” equal to other nationalities of the Soviet Union, religious freedom, the right to print books, magazines in Hebrew, etc.

Another theme, on which the anti-Soviet campaign was based, was the article published in a newspaper of Dagestan about the “Jewish custom of drinking Christian blood”.

On this issue, French press, then American and Israeli have long vilified the Soviet Union. Golda Meir brought the problem into the Parliament, expressing the hope that the Soviet authorities will keep their promise that all those guilty to be punished and all measures

11) Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994), American politician. Vice President (1953-1957; 1957-1961) and President of the U.S.A. (20 Jan. 1969- 9 Aug. 1974). 12) Konrad Adenauer (1876-1967), German politician; one of the founders of the Christian Democratic Party, whose president he was since 1949. Chancellor of the F.R. of Germany (Sept. 14, 1949-Oct. 11, 1963).

134

to be taken not to repeat the situation. Also, she said that the publishing of this article is a worrying fact, given that since the time of the czars and until now such insinuations were never heard.

Closing of the synagogues in the Soviet Union is also a favourite subject of the press to defame the Soviet Union.

Israeli propaganda seeks to infiltrate into the minds of the people of Israel that if the situation in the region is tense, if B. Gurion spends large sums on armaments, and so on, all these happen due to the Soviet Union, arming Nasser. Last visit of Amer13) in the Soviet Union constituted a new campaign in this regard.

2. Relations with the other socialist and people’s democratic countries P.R. of Poland. The diplomatic relations are characterized as fair, formal, friendly, but

in reality they are reduced to normal diplomatic relations. Unlike the previous period, there is a disturbance in the atmosphere of the Israeli-Polish relations, following the statements of Ben Gurion in the Knesset, on the borders of Poland. These statements caused the Polish media to attack Israel and the official protest of the Polish government, who qualified the statement as “unfriendly and pro-Adenauer”, “a support for the German revisionism and neo-Nazism”. The explanations and apologies required by B. Gurion through the Minister of Poland in Israel were not compelling for the government of Poland. The fact that the government of Poland decided not to publicly express its apology to B. Gurion, was because of internal politics reasoning. In fact, the public opinion in Poland began to create a current according to which Poland enemies are neo-Nazis and Jews.

Israel has sought to strengthen the relations with Poland in different ways: thus, it proposed to the P.R. of Poland to send a delegation of journalists and lawyers at the Eichmann trial. The answer was negative. It invited a Jewish delegation from Poland to the World Zionist Congress. The answer was negative. It proposed to make an exchange of representatives of news agencies: Israel-Poland. P.R. of Poland did not accept the proposal. Israel has invited a delegation of Jewish from P.R. of Poland to the International Congress of Polish Jews, which will start on January 14, in Jerusalem. Israel promised not raise the issue of the repairs in Poland. P.R. of Poland gave a negative answer. (The main purpose of this congress is to seek damages from Adenauer for the Jews who came from Poland after 1953 and whose number is about 100 000).

Israel has proposed to establish a Polish-Israeli Friendship Committee in Warsaw, as there is in Israel. The proposal was not accepted. Trade relations are modest. The trade agreement is signed for 4,000,000 $ on both sides. For this year, the trade will not reach 1 million $.

Cultural relations are weaker during this time than in the past. They have no plan of cultural exchange and if one will exist for the next year, it will be on a narrow basis.

S.R. of Czechoslovakia. Diplomatic relations are normal, fait, but distant, without any change from Czechoslovak side.

The Israeli side shows an attitude of goodwill towards Czechoslovakia after the information they received about Eichmann. These data were not given directly, but indirectly through a press conference held in Prague. Sellinger’s request, to examine the documents in Czechoslovakia, was not accepted.

13) Mohammad Abdel-Hakim-Amer (1919-1967), Egyptian marshal. Between 1953-1958 he was the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces. Promoted to marshal in 1957. Between 1958-1962 he was the commander-in-chief of the United Arab Republic’s forces; Nasser’s second Vice President (1961) and First Vice President (1964). After the defeat in the “Six-day war”, grave differences occurred between Amer and Nasser. According to the official version he committed suicide by poisoning on Sept. 10, 1967.

135

Cultural relations based on reciprocity do not exist. Israel has recently permitted the showing of Czech films in Israel, also 2 theatre plays

were enacted at Ohel Theatre. Kol-Israel sometimes airs contemporary Czech music; works of contemporary Czech composers, Yad-Vashem translated the book “Children of Teresin” from Czech into Hebrew.

The attitude of the media towards Czechoslovakia is good, 90% of what is published is pro-Czechoslovakia.

One seeks to avoid carrying out a policy of discrimination against Israel. Therefore, Czechoslovakia invites to its international congresses the representatives of Israel, allows the visiting of Israel by Czech citizens (15 visas were given during this period) and also resolves a small number of family reintegration cases (15 cases). The visit of four journalists (2 from “Kol-Ham”, 1 from “Haaretz”, 1 from “Hatzofe”) was allowed in Czechoslovakia, which had a favourable outcome for Czechoslovakia.

In the commercial field, there are no relations, the volume being of several thousand $. [With] the P.R. of Hungary and [P.R] of Bulgaria, the situation of politico-economic

and cultural relations do not show any change from the previous period. The relations of these countries with Israel are on the same level with the rest of the

socialist bloc. From the Republic of Bulgaria was noted an exchange of football teams and the solution

of the issue of the shoot down the plane. IV. Zionist World Organization On December 28, the Zionist World Congress started in Jerusalem, which is held every

two years. The event attended by a number of delegates (500) from 34 countries, discussed the fate of the Zionist World Org[anization], its relations with the State of Israel, etc.

Given the works of the congress are still in progress, we will revise this point in a special report.

V. Israel - P.R.R. relations For the period covered by the report, these relationships know a sensible improvement

in terms of the atmosphere created around our country. Attacks in the press, radio or in public have almost entirely disappeared. Our Legation was able to publish in the local press a series of articles, either on some events important in the history of our country or on other occasions.

The atmosphere was also reflected in the attitude of willingness, showed to us by some officials on various occasions.

The reason for this change in Israel attitude towards us is that P.R.R solved some cases of family reintegration, to which add Israel hope in a mass emigration.

To this, we should add that Israel is interested to maintain cordial political relations with P.R.R, which will serve as a counterweight to the Arab hatred. Also, P.R.R represents a good market for Israeli products and, at the same time, a source of raw materials. For all these reasons, Israel is working to improve the political, economic and cultural relations with our country. However, we should not overlook the fact that this does not mean that Israel gives up its cold war policy towards us, policy requested by Washington and for which it is paid. But, during the recent period, the cold war policy has lost much of its acuity in what concern us.

If I have to characterize our relations with Israel, they could be considered as normal diplomatic relations, distant, but fair.

136

The cultural relations based on reciprocity do not exist and, during this time, there had been no visit of any man of science, art, etc.

Trade relations are much lower than last year by 50% and the amount will be about 2 million on both sides. The timber, which is the raw material and the most requested products, was not sold at all during this period in Israel.

Regarding the future relations with Israel, I think it is appropriate to proceed with family reunification and, where possible, to accelerate the pace.

In order not to give Israel the impression that we are conducting a discriminatory policy, it is recommended that during the international congresses held in P.R.R, to invite also the Israelis, to allow the visit to Israel of (1-2) men of art, scientists, journalists etc. The current situation, since 2-3 years no men of art, etc. were granted the permission to see our country, is not good.

VI. Legation’s Activity The activity of the legation was more of representation and information. Given the

specificity of our relation, an activity of developing political, cultural and scientific relations between our countries could not be carried out. This implies reciprocity, or this is what we avoid.

Another aspect of our work was the promotion of P.R.R in Israel. This lobby was conducted through the Culture Department, and mass media.

Legation’s activity was carried out based on the work plan. A detailed report will be presented in the Minutes on the analysis of the activity of the Legation, which will be submitted to the 5th Department.

(Ss) Dr. Petru Manu


79

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE OF “HAOLAM HAZE” MAGAZINE

REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISR AEL

January 14, 1961, Tel Aviv On January 13, along with comrade Ion Stănescu, I had a discussion with Avneri, editor-

in-chief of [weekly] “HaOlam Haze” [This World]. We would like to mention that in the last 5 months, this magazine published a series of well documented articles on “Lavon case”. As Avneri mentioned, this magazine defended Lavon and the concepts he was fighting for against the extremist group, pro-West, militaristic, etc., like Moshe Dayan, Simon Peres1), who are supported by Ben Gurion. During the discussion, Avneri informed us of the following:

1) Simon (Shimon) Peres (b. 1923), Israeli officer and politician. Immigrated in Palestine in 1934, member of the Haganah (1947), disciple of Ben Gurion. Between 1953-1959 he was executive officer within the Ministry of Defence; deputy minister of Defence (1959-1965). He resigned and joined the RAFI party, then, since 1968 he is one of the leaders of the new Labour Party. Afterwards Minister of Defence (1974-1977, 1995-1996), head of the Labour Party (1977-1992), Minister of Foreign Affairs (1986-1988, 1992-1995, 2001-2002), of Finance (1988-1990) and Prime Minister (1977, 1984-1988, 1995-1996). President (since 2007).

137

1. Lavon case Precisely on the day of January 13, the newspapers published the speech by Ben Gurion

during the meeting of the CC of MAPAI, when Lavon is attacked in very harsh terms, being qualified as a liar, and accused of the schism of MAPAI Party. Referring to this speech, asking for his opinion, Avneri said that Ben Gurion did not bring any new element in clarifying the situation. Lavon’s statement that he will not lead MAPAI to a schism is not true. The outcome of this conflict cannot be foreseen by anybody in Israel, yet. This will depend mostly on the attitude of Ben Gurion in the future. If Ben Gurion will bring into discussion, during the C.C. of MAPAI, the issue of Lavon’s exclusion from the party and his removal from the position of General Secretary of Histadrut, then the schism in MAPAI is inevitable. Lavon will argue that he was not elected as General Secretary of the Histadrut by the C.C. of MAPAI, but by the General Conference of Histadrut and, therefore it the only one having the right to remove or re-elect him. In terms of the Histadrut, the situation is as follows: MAPAI has about 51% of the votes, and if MAPAI will lose about 10% of the votes – due to the forming of a faction led by Lavon – then it will lose control of this institution.

Lavon’s removal from C.C. of MAPAI will automatically raise the problem of how he will defend himself in the future against Ben Gurion measures and, because of this, Lavon will have to resort to informing a fraction, which most likely will establish some contact with those who supported him in his attitude against Ben Gurion and who are not strangers to foreign policy conceptions. Avneri also referred to MAPAI and Haavoda. In this regard, he recalled that there have already been some contacts between Lavon and the mentioned parties, to form a coalition, unions, etc. developed on a common platform. Avneri believes that certain actions taken by leaders of MAPAI and Ahdut Haavoda during this time to unite the two parties are the result of the situation created in MAPAI Party for adopting a common attitude in Lavon case and the attracting the latter to a common platform. Thus, Meir Yaari [1897-1987], Secretary General of MAPAI, recently published an article acknowledging that the schism, during his time, between MAPAI and Ahdut Haavoda was one of the biggest mistakes. The same thing was acknowledged also by Bar-Yehuda [1895-1965], Secretary General of Ahdut Haavoda[1960-1962].

Avneri considers that MAPAI Party currently undergoes through one of the worst crisis since its foundation [highlighting in text – our ref.]. Such a situation was not even encounter when Ahdut Haavoda left MAPAI. It should be noted that when Ahdut Haavoda Party left the MAPAI, the central leadership, the main staff, its core remained united, while in the case of Lavon party, the staff did not share a common view. Many of the current leaders of MAPAI believe that Ben Gurion is wrong, moreover, they are concerned about the support offered by Ben Gurion to the militarists, who are ready to give up the spirit of “pioneering”, which animated the old generation. So – said Avneri – the fight between MAPAI groups revolves around the question: who will follow Ben Gurion?

In this conflict, there is a group supporting Ben Gurion and other supporting Lavon. Within the C.C. of MAPAI, the groups supporting one of the persons mentioned are approximately equal. This is how the situation presents throughout the MAPAI Party. It should be noted, however, that the majority of MAPAI members does not belong to any of these groups. So, the battle is to win them over.

Many Israeli citizens have the impression that Ben Gurion is wrong and therefore come to terms with the idea that he might leave. To this remark of Avneri, I said that newspapers have lately been filled with announcements and letters from common members, from the economic and social units, which urge that Ben Gurion to maintain its position in the

138

leadership of the country. This is one of the dirtiest set up – said Avneri. Some information is inaccurate and many letters are the result of pressures from the supporters of Ben Gurion.

2. Israeli-Arab relations

Israel formally proposed the Arabs “unconditional talks”. Israel seeks to obtain from the

Arabs, among others, the recognition of Israel, while the Arab countries pursue the Arab refugee problem solving, territorial problem solving, granting of rights of the Arab minority in Israel, etc. However, acceptance by Arabs of “unconditional negotiations” would mean that Israel obtains a victory even before the beginning of the fight, given that negotiations could be interpreted as a de facto recognition of the existence of the State of Israel. Of course – said Avneri – the Israeli-Arab relations problem arises not only in this respect. Israel does not want to solve the refugee problem, disagrees with the current revision of its territory, etc. Thus, it is not true that Israel would make unilateral efforts for the conclusion of peace in this part of the world. The Israeli government thesis of “unconditional talks” aimed to mislead the ordinary Israeli citizens who would automatically think: What do the Arabs want more?

Avneri said that after the establishment of the State of Israel, there have been several initiatives by foreign elements to solve the Israeli-Arab relations problem. Thus, India’s Ambassador in Cairo (1953-1957) has passed several times through Israel – saying that he goes to U.N. Headquarters from Jerusalem – in order to talk to the representatives of the Israeli government regarding the establishment of peace with the Arabs. Then, Florence mayor tried a few times to be a kind of intermediary between Israel and the U.A.R. Such actions have been undertaken in recent years. Therefore, it is not that Israel and the Arab countries do not know the position of the other. Preparations for concluding peace with the Arabs must be started by preparing the climate in the Middle East region. Yet, the Israeli government acts the opposite. Moreover, peace is the result of compromises. The Israeli government does not want to compromise on vital issues like Arab refugees, territory, etc.

Avneri said that the group he is part of (former Stern’s group) regards this problem as presented above. But – said Avneri – it must be acknowledged that the majority of the Israeli population regards it [in the] light of government propaganda.

3. Israel’s relations with the Afro-Asian countries Regarding the resolutions adopted at Casablanca Conference [on January 7, 1961 – our

ref.], in Israel there are many reactions. First, the government response was that these resolutions are not important and therefore the work in Africa should be continued at the same rate. Then, there are political groups – which opinions are partially shared by some officials who believe that after the adoption of Casablanca resolutions one must draw the lessons, meaning not to make a lot of fuss around the “good relations” that exists between Israel and the countries of Africa, that Israel offers “disinterested assistance,” etc. Also, there is another category – which includes Stern’s group – for which the resolutions from Casablanca are no surprise considering Israel’s activities in Africa and the position it has taken towards certain international problems. Thus, Israel supports Kasavubu2) in Congo, the French in Algeria matter and the problem of atomic experiments in the Sahara. To all these problems, African nations are extremely sensitive and thus any help received is valued in the light of the attitude of the respective country towards the problems mentioned.

Israel aimed to emerge from isolation avoiding the Arab countries and intensified its activity in Africa, hoping – after the granted support – to transform its relations with these 2) Joseph Kasavubu (1913-1969), Zairian statesman. President of the State (Jun. 30, 1960-Nov. 25, 1965). He was ousted by a coup d’Etat organized and led by Joseph Désiré Mobutu (Mobutu Sese Seko, 1930-1997).

139

countries in a political relation and thus influence the Arabs. The reality is that the African countries have understood Israel’s true intentions and, therefore, in Avneri’s opinion, the Israeli policy was well qualified into the resolutions adopted at Casablanca. These resolutions do not talk about Israel, the Jewish people, etc. They only condemn the Israeli government’s policies.

Next, Avneri said that following the attitude adopted by Nkrumah3) this could also be reflected into the relations between Israel and Ghana, but he does not believe that they would cease all economic exchanges, given that Ghana needs Israel’s help.

At the end of the discussion, Avneri informed us that a few weeks ago a Committee was formed in Israel “To grant Algeria its independence”. The platform of the committee calls for the immediate cessation of the war in Algeria, the withdrawal of the troops from Algeria, recognition of the provisional government, the self-determination, etc. From the discussions, I understood that this committee was initiated by the former members of the Stern Group and by some un-affiliated elements and that younger elements occupy an important place in this committee.

(Ss) Ion Covaci, Third Secretary


80

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU M ĂNESCU1), MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON 2),

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST

April 11, 1961, Bucharest

On April 7, current year, Comrade C. Mănescu, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, met the

new Minister of Israel in P.R.R, K. Salmon. Comrade N. Şerban, Director a.i. of Protocol, and – as an interpreter – comrade I. Ganea, Secretary I within MFA.

Salmon expressed his satisfaction for being appointed in P.R.R, adding that he is not for the first time in our country.

Comrade C. Mănescu said that in our country meets all the conditions for the development of diplomatic activity, based on mutual respect between states, the observance of

3) Dr Kwame (Francis Nwia-Kofi Ngonloma) Nkrumah (1909-1972), leader of Ghana and African personality.. Prime Minister of the Gold Coast (1952-1957), then of Independent Ghana (1957-1960). President of the Republic of Ghana (Jul. 1960- Feb. 24, 1966). One of the founders of the Organization of African Unity. 1) Corneliu Mănescu (1916-2000), Romanian politician and diplomat. Deputy ministry of Defence (1948-1955), ambassador in Budapest (1960-1961). Minister of Foreign Affairs (1961-1972). Since 1965 he was also Member within the Grand National Assembly. He led the Romanian delegations to the U.N. General Assembly’s sessions (1961-1972). President of the twenty second session of the U.N. General Assembly (1967-1968). Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Paris (1977-1982). 2) Katriel Pessach Salmon, Israeli diplomat. Born in Jerusalem in 1911, he graduated in 1937 from the London School of Economics. Between 1940-1945 he served in the British army and in the Jewish Brigade. Between 1950-1954 e was military attaché of the Israeli Defence Army in Great Britain and in the Scandinavian countries, and between 1954-1957 in U.S.A. and Canada. Former advisor to the Israeli Ministry of Finance. In 1959 he was appointed extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in South Africa. Extraordinary envoy and plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest (Apr. 14, 1961-Jul. 15, 1963). AMFA, founds 10/Foreign representatives. Israel, f. S-36,f. 6.

140

diplomatic norms and customs and of the laws in force in P.R.R. For such diplomatic activity, the Minister wishes Salmon success in his new assignment.

While expressing his gratitude, Salmon said that, in his opinion, between P.R.R and Israel there are many affinities, the two countries have many similar problems. He believes that the economic and cultural relations between the two countries could and should be extended. Also, he considers that the Romanian people registered great achievements in the last 12 years, especially in the economic field, achievements he wants to know about, in order to learn from them, being convinced that from our experience one can learn a lot, as we could do from theirs.

Comrade Mănescu said in his response that P.R.R is a socialist country that maintains political and economic relations with an increasing number of countries, both socialist as well as with others. We also believe that one can learn from the experience of others. The Minister will have the opportunity to find out about our achievements. We would like him to understand them and properly present them properly to his bodies. We hope that the Minister will be able to do so.

Salmon assures the Minister that in terms of understanding the realities of our country he, personally, as well as the people of Israel in general, is well intentioned. He will seek to know these achievements that he considers as very important.

Comrade Mănescu answers that he values the words of Salmon, assures him of the fact that he will have the chance to personally see the achievements of P.R.R and he will enjoy the entire support for his activity, contributing thus to consolidating peace and good understanding.

Comrade Salmon express his gratitude and belief that the activity that he will carry out in our countries will be in the interest of both countries.

The meeting lasted 30 minutes.


81

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE JUSTINIAN PATRIARCH WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, ON COMMON ISSUES

June 13, 1961, Bucharest

The Patriarch Justinian met, on June 13, 1961 with K. Salmon, Minister of Israel in the

P.R.R. Comrade T. Diţulescu, on behalf of the Vth Department of Relations, assisted. K. Salmon made a long introduction to reveal the “ancient spiritual connections

between Judaism and Christianity”, to mark the significance of his visit to the Head of the Romanian Church. He was interested in the organization of the Church in the P.R.R, focusing on the “training of the theological staff. One of the questions was thus formulated: “Do you think that a sufficient number of young people are turning to theological education, for which they have a calling?”

The Patriarch Justinian responded to Salmon’s questions and underlined that the Romanian Orthodox Church maintains good relationships with other leaders of the Hegumen

141

Church of Constantinople. The Patriarch also mentioned that, in Jerusalem, Romanian Church has a community centre and a church, problem that Salmon has hinted that he hears for the first time, although, in the introduction, he mentioned that he was born in Jerusalem.

To Patriarch Justinian statement that the Romanian Church receives letters of gratitude from some Israeli citizens of Romanian origin, who were helped by the Patriarchate to reunite their families, Salmon became more interested in the discussion, addressing the issue of the likely support of the Romanian Orthodox Church, personally, in “maintaining and developing a spiritual connection between Judaism and Christianity”.

Thus, he proposed to initiate a partnership with the Hebrew Institute of the University of Jerusalem, which has recently made some very important discoveries of the precursory period and the first centuries of Christianity.

He even suggested the idea that the Romanian Orthodox Church to send its representative to study at the above-mentioned institute.

The Patriarch Justinian said that the from the publications of the Patriarchate have known many of the details of recent archaeological discoveries in Israel and so far there was not planning any visit of a representative of the Romanian Church in Jerusalem for research. The idea suggested by Salmon is welcomed and will be considered, probably in the interest of Patriarchate Hebrew teachers.

In conclusion, Salmon asked to be advised on the most interesting religious monuments in Moldova that he could visit saying that by the end of this month, he is planning a trip to Moldova. He expressed his hope that, next time, he could introduce one of his collaborators to the Patriarch Justinian, who is very interested in byzantinism.

The meeting lasted 60 minutes. Salmon was handed an album with the most interesting churches of P.R.R and an album

with images from P.R.R.


82

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AN D

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 7341 October 18, 1961, Bucharest Top secret On October 16, current year, comrade V. Dumitrescu, Deputy of the Minister of Foreign

Affairs, met the Minister of Israel, Katriel Salmon, regarding his forthcoming leave. Comrade V. Vîşinschi, referee within the Vth Department, assisted. Israeli Minister mentioned that, before leaving, he would like to analyse some aspects

of the relations between the two countries, so that, afterwards to inform his government about the problems emerged in this direction. In the same context, Mr Salmon recalled that he tried several times during the last 6 months since he was in Bucharest, to discuss certain issues with someone from the state leadership of P.R.R, but did not have had the chance, because during the summer months, these people were always busy. K. Salmon expressed his belief that in winter, when things will probably settle down, he may have these conversations.

142

Next, K. Salmon had a pretty long and wordy presentation of the issues he wanted to discuss, saying, among other things, that, as suggested during the first visit, he tried to imprint to his collaborators the obligation to comply with the practices, etc. and that he was glad to find out that everything goes well. K. Salmon repeatedly insisted on the need for collaboration between P.R.R authorities and Israel Legation in Bucharest in resolving legal issues of the departures from P.R.R to Israel, that he has always qualified as “emigration and immigration issues”.

Comrade V. Dumitrescu rejects the allegations of Israel’s Minister about the immigration, recalling our position in this regard, namely the humanitarian aspects considered by the authorities of P.R.R in granting people the permission to join their families abroad, under the appropriate circumstance.

In terms of the actual solving of these departures, it is about Israel or other countries, it is an internal problem of the P.R. of Romania and therefore there cannot be any kind of collaboration between our authorities and the foreign ones.

Mr Salmon said that, regarding this issue, it would be better if both sides avoid any ostentatious manifestations, demonstrations or other wide publicity activities and alluded to the fact that solving the situation of the partings from P.R.R would be subject to certain internal reasons.

Comrade V. Dumitrescu reminds that there were the Zionist circles who have initiated the hostile campaign against P.R.R. It is known that such activity can only damage the relations between P.R.R and Israel. We believe that the relations between P.R.R and Israel are determined by international practice of diplomatic relations and not by the existence of special cases, such family integration, etc. About this, it would be beneficial if such inappropriate activities, as those of which some people from Israel’s Legation in Bucharest were guilty of, do not happen again and remain in the past. We hope that the Israeli side will take act so that the relations between the two countries to develop normally.

The Minister of Israel said that he had no intention to interfere in our internal matters. Regarding the term “emigration”, he used it as it is usual for them in Israel. Further, he referred to the development of trade and cultural exchanges between P.R.R and Israel. He said that, this week, he will have a meeting with comrade Gogu Radulescu1), with whom he hopes to discuss in detail these issues, while emphasizing the need for an extensive increase of tourist exchanges.

Comrade V. Dumitrescu states, once again, that is not about an emigration from the P.R. of Romania and express his hopes that the Israeli diplomats will understand this better. Next, referring to our economic development projects, Comrade V. Dumitrescu said that this creates increased opportunities both in terms of export and as well as import. We are for the development of these exchanges, to the extent that they are mutually beneficial to all countries, according to the international practice, based on pacts, conventions, agreements, etc. In terms of tourism, Israeli tourist institutions should approach ONT. For now, P.R.R tourist operations scale is still relatively limited, depending on options, tourist, etc. In time, of course, P.R.R opportunities in this area will expand.

1) Gogu (Gheorghe) Rădulescu (1914-1993), Romanian economist and politician, member of the R.C.P. since 1933. Deputy director of international economic relations within the Ministry of Economy (1948-1952), director of the Institute for Economic Studies of the R.P.R. Academy (1956-1957); deputy minister and afterwards minister of Foreign Trade (1957-1968); member of the C.C. (1960) and of Executive Political Committee of the C.C. of the R.C.P. (1965-1979); vice-president of the Council of Ministers (1963-1979).

143

K. Salmon asked comrade V. Dumitrescu to consider the proposal made in the past by his predecessor to comrade A. Bunaciu2) regarding the parting of 2 civil servants from Israel’s legation in Bucharest to Israel.

Comrade V. Dumitrescu said that he will inform the competent authorities about this issue.

The meeting lasted approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1961, unpaged.

83

NOTE REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWE EN ROMANIA AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL

Top Secret December 18, 1961, Bucharest The relations between the Popular Republic of Romania and Israel are generally

reserved: trade volume reaches a volume lower than its true potential and even of the one under the trade agreement in force, while the official cultural exchanges are non-existent.

Israel shows a constant interest to develop relations with the Popular Republic of Romania in all respects. However, R.P. of Romania did not act on this trend, because of specific reasons related to the Romanian-Israeli relations (attempts of interference in our internal affairs, invoking the issue of family reunification, Zionist tensions, etc.), as well as the role that Israel plays in the imperialist plans.

Raising the issue of family reintegration, official bodies in Israel, in cooperation with the Zionist circles in the West, have tried in various ways to interfere in the internal affairs of P.R. of Romania. In the past, Israel’s Legation in Bucharest tried to act as a “representative” of the Jewish population of P.R. of Romania. Some of the members of this Legation, abusing diplomatic immunity and privileges, their actions repeatedly violating the laws of P.R. of Romania; the Zionist tension between Romanian citizens of Jewish nationality, attracting some of them in espionage, traffic of currency, etc.

In this situation, during 1958-1960, the authorities of P.R. of Romania have declared “persona non grata” a total of four diplomats of the Israeli Legation in Bucharest.

Given these precedents, in early 1961 MFA did not grant access visas for two Israeli Diplomats, because they were born in the P.R. of Romania. After a formal protest of the Israeli Legation, the Israeli MFA, tacitly, renounced the appointment of the two diplomats.

In the past, propaganda bodies in Israel, with the help of some officials, have initiated repeated denigration campaign against P.R. of Romania, which triggered AGERPRES Statement of February 25, 1959, and M.F.A protests against the Minister of Israel.

The past two years, the defamation action was greatly diminished. Reason: Israeli authorities are satisfied with the way in which the issue of family reintegration is solved.

Given the aforementioned, between P.R. of Romania and Israel was never concluded any agreement or cultural plan and the proposals this in this regard from the Israeli side were never accepted.

2) Avram Bunaciu (1909-1983), Romanian attorney and politician, member of the R.C.P. since 1939. Secretary General of M.I.A. (1945-1948), minister of Justice (1948-1949; 1957-1958); president of the State Control Committee (1949-1950), deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (1950-1954), secretary of the G.N.A. Presidium (1954-1957), Minister of Foreign Affairs (1958-1961), Vice-President of the State Council (1961-1965).

144

The activity of promoting the achievements of our country in Israel through the “Israel-P.R. of Romania Friendship League”, who organizes cultural events, especially among those originated from P.R. of Romania.

The trade between P.R. of Romania and Israel is carried out under the commercial payment agreement, concluded on September 1954 and extended annually.

The total foreseen volume under the agreement was of 9 million $. The evolution of trade in the period from 1955 to 1960 including, was as follows:

Val. in thousands of roubles (old)

1960 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959

Export 5.0 2.5 11.5 7.3 7.5 2.1 Import 4.0 4.3 8.5 10.0 7.5 6.6 Total Val. 9.0 6.8 20.0 17.3 15.0 8.7

Approximate Val. In mil. $ 2.2 1.7 5.0 4.3 3.7 2.1

The situation within January 1- September 30, 1961 Contracted Obtained Import approx. 1.84 thousand $ approx. 1.6 thousand $ Export approx. 840 000 $ approx. 300 000 $

In recent years, the trade balance of P.R. of Romania is passive, partially due to the fact that Israel has suspended the delivery of softwood lumber. Yet, the Ministry of Commerce considers that the balance of payments is balanced by the addition of some amounts in the Bank of Israel in favour of P.R. of Romania, from the non-commercial receivables (1960 = approx. 1.2 million$; 1961, first 9 months = approx. 900,000$) .

This situation is detrimental to the P.R. of Romania and for balancing import; the increase of export is required.

On the question asked by the Ministry of Commerce, our Ministry said that the trade between P.R. of Romania and Israel can be further developed up to the average of trades that our state has with the Western capitalist countries and the Middle East.

During the recent couple of months a real offensive of the Israeli Legation in Bucharest took place so that to develop the relations between P.R. of Romania and Israel. Repeatedly, both at the MFA and the Ministry of Commerce, the Israel’s Minister in Bucharest raised the issue of reviewing the lists of goods under the trade agreement, which no longer correspond to the real possibility of import-export of the two countries and do not allow the development of trade. Every time he stated that Israel is interested in importing from P.R. of Romania whitewood, raw oil and even boats.

During the last meetings at the M.F.A (comrades G. Macovescu and Ion Georgescu), the

Israeli Minister spoke about the opening of direct air and sea lines between P.R. of Romania and Israel.

In terms of cultural exchange, Israel’s Minister explores the possibilities that could be exploited in this area.

The cause of the Israeli offensive must be sought both in the fact that the trade between P.R. of Romania and Israel is mutually beneficial and in the interest of the Israeli authorities to have the closest contact with the authorities in P.R. of Romania, hoping thereby to ensure

145

continuity in the action of reintegration of the separated families and establish wider contacts between Israel Legation and the related Jewish communities in the country.

As litigious issues, in the matters of the relations between the Popular Republic of

Romania and Israel, we would like to mention: 1. Immovable assets in Jerusalem, belonging to the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchy

remain under the possession of the Israeli Minister of Religious Affairs. 2. Israeli bodies are intensely recording the goods left behind in P.R. of Romania by

those who went to Israel, counting on asking for compensation for these goods when the time will come. AMFA, Israel matter. Problem 220/1961, unpaged.

84


THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE INCIDENTS AT THE BORDER WITH SYRIA

No. 22 734/A-B-C March 23, 1962, Tel Aviv, 11.00 h Top secret. Post-haste 1. On 22nd of this month, at 9:00, I was invited to Iachil Haim [Chaim Yahil, 1905-

1974], General Director within Israeli MFA. The purpose of the invitation was to inform us, in our capacity as non-permanent member of the Security Council, about Israeli position on the incidents from the Syrian border – in the region of Lake Tiberias1), given that on March 28, the Security Council debate on these incidents is to take place.

During the discussion, Iachil sought to express Israeli government “concern” regarding the border incidents, from the last period, while stressing that after a two-year period of peace, the Syrians would be resumed the series of challenges in the area of Lake Tiberias, which according to the Israeli government statement, is located entirely on Israeli territory.

First Syrian actions have begun in February this year, and they would did not react to, showing the same “goodwill” towards Syria, granting it permission to continue to supply water from Lake Tiberias and fish on a small area of the lake.

He said then that his government is also puzzled by the U.N. observers attitude [From] which, although the incidents were made known, protesting, it did not receive a proper response.

He also informed us that following the Syrian attacks of 21st of this month, Israel protested again against U.N. troops, urging the establishment of an observation point on the Lake Tiberias. Once again he stated that Israel has did not answer to the Syrians, because it did not want to endanger the negotiations of General [Carl Carlsson] van Horn with the Syrian side, negotiations that must take place on 22nd of this month, regarding these incidents.

Iachil added that Israel has no interest beyond the lake, the border, they are interested to have peace in the area and Israeli fishermen to be protected, stressing, once again, that lake Tiberias is entirely located on Israeli territory, and if Syrians will not stop with the “challenges”, they will have to answer for them, given that their patience is also limited.

1) See “Scânteia”, Year XXXI, no. 5 489, April 15, 1962, p. 4.

146

In conclusion, Iachil asked us to send Israel’s position to the government of P.R.R, given the debates that will begin on 28th of this month within the Security Council. In this context, I replied that I took note of the statements made and I will pass them on to Bucharest.

I believe that the arid briefing of Iachil had a double purpose, respectively: a. Meeting the formalities by presenting a strictly official briefing and informing us

about in general about Israeli position on the incidents, without seeking to convince us of the correctness of their view. Although, at the insistence of Iachil, some questions were asked to get a clearer picture on how incidents evolved, the response received was the same, common and without substance.

b. Recalling that Israel’s patience is “limited”, the Israeli government tries to justify by this the premeditation of new aggressive sanctions against Siria2), which it would not come as a surprise, given the form of the Israeli MFA official briefing, the preparatory actions taken on the line of undeclared mobilizing of the forces around the border with the Arab countries.

I would like to mention that during his briefing, Iachil made no reference to the Israeli aggression committed on the night of 16 on the Syrian territory.

During the visit that I have paid to the Chilean Ambassador on the 23rd of this month, I found out that he had encountered the same kind of problems like we did.

There were also invited, separately, to M.F.A the representatives of the other member states of the Security Council: Ghana, Chile and Venezuela.

One day before, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs discussed with the Ambassador of the Soviet Union. Also, the Ambassador of U.S. demanded M.F.A explanations on aggression.

(Ss) Popescu


85


RABBI MOSES ROSEN’S FIRST VISIT IN ISRAEL No. 22 736/A - B March 28, 1962, Tel Aviv, 13.05 h Top secret. Post-haste Rabbi Moses informed me that he was visited by an official of the Ministry of Culture

[of Israel – our ref.] who proposed, on behalf of the Ministry, the following: He was informed that an invitation was sent to him to pay a visit to the Israeli State President and to the Minister of Religious Affairs. Moreover, he was proposing a wreath ceremony at the “I.O.D. Yad Vashem” Institute, in the memory of the Jews killed by Hitler. He was also proposed to meet the Rabbis of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and then attend a closed reception held by the

2) On Apr. 5, 1962, by telegram no. 22 740/a, the Romanian Legation in Tel Aviv was informing in detail regarding the measures taken by Israel, following the incidents in the region of lake Tiberias: “Thus, after the attack on Syria in the region of lake Tiberias, the Israeli government has declared partial deployment – three contingents, especially from the tanks, mechanized and aviation troops, gathering them in the vulnerable locations from the border with the Arab countries and especially at the border with Syria [...]”. According to the discussions had by the U.S.A. ambassador in Tel Aviv with Ben Gurion, the Israeli prime minister decided to use these troops to put pressure on certain members of the Security Council, threatening, at the same time, that he will use force if the Israelis “will not get justice” . See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1962.

147

Ministry of Culture, on the occasion of his private visit. He also was proposed to attend a reception of the organizations of Jews coming from P.R.R. At the same time the Friendship League proposed to hold a conference in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem and a reception on this occasion and to give an interview to the newspaper “Glasul Patriei”.

In Rabbi’s opinion, the visits to the Israeli State President and to the Minister of Religious Affairs could not deny nor commit the attendance. In addition, he will accept the wreath ceremony, and discussions with the two Rabbis. Regarding the participation in the receptions held by the two organizations, he was somewhat in doubt; in any case, he believes that if he should accept the invitation of the Friendship League, he will have to accept also those of the Jewish organization so that he would not be accused of being a propagandist communist. Also, he does not want to give interviews, but statements, conferences during the respective receptions, where he will says what he considers to be important and not what the media wants.

Given the indications that he received prior to his departure from the country, to aim the setting of the agenda in relation to the circumstances, Rosen considers that he can accept the invitations, taking into consideration the pressure that are exercised on him, to get in contact with some categories of citizens and organizations, even if his visit is private. Indeed, at his family house there was a daily pilgrimage and the Legation was assaulted by editors, publishers and other curious people who wanted to meet him.

As the media, in its brief press release, have said that the Rabbi is visiting his relatives or pays a private visit, his contacts with the religious organizations or with those organizations from P.R.R is not likely to generate difficulties as conceived by the Rabbi.

I would like to mention that in addressing the problems that he proposes to present on these occasions, it results that he is in a good position.

(Ss) Popescu


86

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DUMITRU POPESCU, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, WITH MOSHE AVIDAN, DIRECTOR OF THE EASTERN EUROPE D IVISION

WITHIN THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REG ARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 12249 April 18, 1962, Tel Aviv Top Secret On March 22 current year, the Charge d’affaires of the Popular Republic of Romania in

Tel Aviv, comrade D. Popescu, paid a visit to the Head of the Eastern Region, Avidan, born in P.R. of Romania.

He expressed his wish that [sic!] the contacts between Israeli MFA and the Legation of P.R. of Romania be more regular, so that in terms of certain political issues, the office to be informed and know the official point of view. Further, he said that other socialist representatives, particularly the Czechoslovak Charge d’affaires, have such close contacts, and the Minister of Israel in Bucharest “enjoys a lot of attention from the MFA, discussing the issues that he is interested in”. Avidan’s opinion was that the Minister of Israel, Salmon, has returned to Israel “a true Romanian”, speaking with admiration about the constructive aspect

148

of P.R. of Romania, being satisfied that he was ensured proper conditions of work and he enjoyed a lot of attention through the visits he had paid to the state leadership.

Avidan said also that the Israeli M.F.A took the initiative to pay some visits, for the diplomats, to various objectives in Israel. This initiative was undertaken to create better conditions for understanding key aspects of internal life. In Israel, such visits are organized by the Relation Department and not by the Protocol Department.


87

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ŢA1), DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST

No. 14 093 January 30, 1963, Bucharest Top Secret On January 15 this year, comrade M. Maliţa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, met

Katriel Salmon, Minister of Israel, at his request. Comrade V. Vîşinschi, referee within the Vth Department of Relation, assisted.

Saying that he is paying this courtesy visit late, because comrade Maliţa was abroad for

a long time, K. Salmon asks about his line of work. Comrade M. Maliţa said that within the M.F.A he coordinates the activity of

international organizations. K. Salmon said that, as far as he knows, the personnel of M.F.A combine the work at

the Ministry with the academic activity. Asked about his profession, K. Salmon said that he was educated as an economist. For

many years, he dealt with financial and economic issues within the Jewish Agency, being at the same time enrolled in the units of the clandestine military organization “Haganah”2). During the war [Second World War], these units were integrated into the British army, participating in the operations in North Africa and Italy and, after the truce some of the squads were stationed in Netherlands to oversee the demining executed by the German prisoners.

Comrade M. Maliţa asked if the Jewish squads formed a distinct body. K. Salmon said that it was a brigade which, although it was integrated into the British

army, worn its own signs and colours. Next, he presented the history of the creation of the

1) Mircea Maliţa (born 1927). Graduated from the Faculty of Mathematics, University of Bucharest. Doctor of Philosophy, corresponding member of the Romanian Academy, a member of the Writers’ Union, between 1948-1949, he was President of the National Union of Students. Director of the Library of the Romanian Academy (1950-1955). Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of Romania to U.N. (1956-1960). Director within M.F.A. (1960-1961), Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (1962-1970). Between 1970 and 1972 he served as Minister of Education, and from 1972 until 1977, he was adviser to the President of S.R.R. He participated and led the Romanian delegation to the UN General Assembly (1956-1969) and at conferences of UNESCO, UNCTAD, “Disarmament, Science and Technology (UNCSERD). Later, in 1981, Romania’s permanent representative to the UN Office in Geneva and Ambassador in Bern. 2) “Haganah” (in Hebrew = fight) – Jewish self-defence organization, created during the British mandate to ensure the implanting and defence of the Jewish colonies in Palestine, against the Arab population. It was tolerated, but never recognized by the British government. In 1945, numbered around 60,000 volunteers, supplying Israel, after the proclamation of independence, key military personnel.

149

State of Israel. He said that when the Second World War started, the situation Palestine is likely to discontent the Jewish organizations, given that the British authorities made concessions to the pro-German activity and obstruct the Jews emigration in Europe, at a time when their persecution intensified.

K. Salmon recalled that his family is originally from Palestine. Continuing his presentation, he said that the mandating authorities, at the beginning, conditioned the integration of “Haganah” units into the British army by the participation of the Arabs, who, however, refused to enrol in spite of the mufti’s anxiety. In the end, the formation of the Jewish brigade was accepted. After the war, Jewish organizations restarted the activity against the English people, moving to armed actions. K. Salmon described these actions as marking “the beginning of the end of the colonialism”, given that, although India was proclaimed independent before the establishment of the State of Israel, it only took place a transfer of prerogatives, since in Palestine, armed fights occurred.

Comrade M. Maliţa intervened by saying that if the position and vote of Israel representatives will always position on the line of anti-colonialism, it would be consistent with those stated by K. Salmon.

K. Salmon said that the Israelis are proud of the votes of their representatives, in this matter. He exemplified through the Israeli vote in favour of Libya’s independence, in spite of its forthcoming entry into the Arab League, which implicitly means, joining the boycott against Israel. He insisted on the fact that Israel representatives took a stand against Great Britain, mostly in terms of the African continent.

Comrade M. Maliţa noted that, as far as he knows, Israel relations with the African countries are good and there are economic connections.

K. Salmon said that Israel, as an experienced country in developing under similar conditions to those faced by the newly African states, has established close relations with countries, especially in the economic field. Next, he referred to the composition of the Israel population based on origin, saying that, Israelis are wrongfully considered as a European originated people, given that 30% of the number of inhabitants of the country is Palestinian Jews and over 50% – emigrants from the East and Africa. Praising Israel’s activity in Africa, he said that, in the end it is not about profit, but gaining political capital in this part of the world [highlighting in text – our ref.]. Yet, he underlined that sending Israeli experts in Africa is advantageous, allowing the young personnel the chance to affirm and gain experience so that, later, to successfully use them in Israel.

Comrade M. Maliţa said he had watched in New York a documentary on the prospects for finding water in the Negev desert. He asked K. Salmon whether results were obtained in this plan.

K. Salmon said that the soil of the mentioned region is fertile because of the loess deposited hundreds of thousands of years ago. Irrigation of these lands would result in three harvests a year. Because of drilling works, water was found in several areas. Then, he referred to the operation of seawater desalination on a large scale.

Comrade M. Maliţa expressed the opinion that the meeting to be held in February 1963 in Geneva, under the auspices of UNESCO, on the theme “Science and technology for development” will have interesting results. K. Salmon said that the initiative in convening the conference actually belongs to Israel, as the country held a symposium on the same theme, the idea being assumed by U. Thant3), in order to organize an international meeting [emphasis in text – our ref.]. He spoke about Israeli industrial projects, particularly those on desalination, noting that what is important is to obtain energy, and in this area you

3) U Thant (1909-1974), Burmese statesman and diplomat. In the period 1953-1957, he was the Secretary of the Burmese Prime Minister Cabinet. Representative of Burma at the U.N (1957-1961). U.N General Secretary (1961-1971).

150

can find multiple ways of cooperation between different countries. He said he was impressed by the achievements in our country, which he had the opportunity to observe during a visit through the country, especially as he visited P.R.R. in 1949 for a week. He underlined the fact that the changes that took place during this 12 year period are significant.

Comrade M. Maliţa underlined the fact that, as K. Salmon noted, our main concern is the multilateral development of the country on the path of progress.

K. Salmon thanked for the meeting. The meeting lasted an hour.


88


THE SOVIET PROPOSAL FOR DENUCLEARIZATION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND FOR

SOLVING THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT

No. 38 085 13 June 1963, Tel Aviv, 15.30 h Top Secret In connection with the Soviet initiative for the denuclearization of the Mediterranean

region, we report the following: Although the Israeli government did not formally dismissed the Soviet Note, in its

response of May 30, it eluded the grounds of the problem, by putting in the forefront the so-called deficiencies of the Soviet Note (Note did not recall the influence of Jews throughout the history and culture of the peoples of the region and the fact that Jerusalem is the centre of Judaism) and threatening peace in the Middle East as a result of the “actions” Arab. Also, the Israeli government has not assumed any concrete obligations to support the initiative of the Soviet Union and neither took any action against the U.S intention to transform the Mediterranean region into an atomic base.

The Soviet Note addressed to the Israeli government echoed among the public and some political parties and movements. Thus, it was in the media spotlight for over two weeks, although official circles began a propaganda campaign to diminish its importance, being published large extracts, simultaneously, in big pro-government newspapers of the Western press, which qualified the Soviet initiative as a propaganda manoeuvre.

Besides I.C.P, the proposal was supported by MAPAM and the group of Israeli academics and publishers, who stand for the atomic disarmament of Israel and Middle East. Also, there was expressed some positive feedback by a series of leaders of the Liberal Party. MAPAM Party demanded that the Israeli government to seriously consider the Soviet Note that seeks to remove the Mediterranean region from under the East-West conflict, citing the “Rapacki Plan”1), which aims to neutralize certain European countries.

At the same time, it calls [recalls] that the Soviet proposal creates real prerequisites for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict. The group of teachers and publishers asked during conferences and meetings that the Israeli government to respond positively to the Soviet Note. On the other hand, the group took the initiative to set up a Foreign Policy Association to push for radical change of Israeli policy, by adopting a new guideline, based on the following 1) “Rapacki Plan” stipulates the creation of a nuclear-free zone in the Central Europe, which will include Federal Republic Germany, German Democratic Republic, P. R of Poland and P.R of Czechoslovakia. Adam Rapacki (1909-1970), Polish diplomat and statesman. Minister of Foreign Affairs (1956-1968).

151

principles: a nuclear-free Middle East, establishing peace between Israel and the Arab countries, Israel’s policy of neutrality and participation to improve the relations between East and West.

Israeli Communist Party actively supported the Soviet Note because it creates the perspective of removing Israel from the missile-nuclear race and ceasing the arms race in the region; it creates a foundation for the mitigation of the Israeli-Arab conflict and contributes to improving Israeli-Soviet relations and strengthens Israel’s position internationally.

(Ss) D. Popescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1963, f. 106-107.

89

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF EDUARD MEZINCESCU 1), DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH

KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 14 907 July 15, 1963, Bucharest Top Secret On 12 July this year, comrade Eduard Mezincescu, Deputy Minister, received a fair-well

visit from the Minister of Israel in Bucharest, Katriel Salmon, at his request. Nicolae Micu, attaché, assisted too. Israeli Minister says that, since in a few days he will leave for good Bucharest, he

would like to share his feelings of friendship that he nurtures for the Romanian people, his sorrow when he thinks that he have to leave a country where he spent two great years. According to him, the Romanian people, the culture, language, Latinity, temperament and hospitality are close to the one of the peoples of the Mediterranean area, which makes a complete stranger in these countries to get very easily attached.

In order to really know the world today, said Katriel Salmon, it is absolutely necessary to know the socialist system and U.S. In what concerns him, if he should remain in a socialist country to further study Socialism, he would prefer Bucharest instead of Moscow, because this not too big city allows a closer contact with people, with its representatives and leaders.

Katriel Salmon thanked the Romanian government and M.F.A for the implication and support he enjoyed in its mission.

Eduard Mezincescu said that during the period when Katriel Salmon represented Israel in Bucharest, the relations between the two countries have developed normally and that in terms of the work done by Minister of Israel, he does not remember to have been important objections.

Agreeing that the relations between the two countries develop normally, the Israeli Minister said that, however, he, personally, believes that the development of relations between P.R.R. and Israel was not able to use an important element, namely the affection,

1) Eduard Mezincescu (b. 1909). Romanian politician, diplomat and publicist. General Director and General Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1947-1948 and 1957-1960). Minister of Culture (1948-1952). Vice-president of the Society for Promotion of Science and Culture (1952-1957). Since 1960, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ambassador in Stockholm, Copenhagen and Oslo (since 1966-1967).

152

sympathy and admiration towards the Romanian people of the 250,000 Israelis coming from Romania. Many have a good position in Israel and enjoy influence among the people so, he considers that using more intense their feelings of friendship for the Romanian people, would lead to an indisputable development of the Romanian-Israeli relations.

Eduard Mezincescu said to the Israeli Minister that in terms of foreign relations, the Romanian government promotes a policy of peaceful coexistence with all countries, regardless of their socio-political regime, a policy based on the principles of non-interference in other states’ internal affairs and respect of the sovereignty of each state. Romanian diplomats abroad have specific instructions to strictly comply with the laws, customs and manners of the country in which they are. Therefore, it is natural that P.R.R. to pretend, in its turn, that the foreign diplomats to observe the statutes and customs of the Romanian people.

Regardless of the concepts and ways of interpretation of certain economic, political, cultural or philosophical problems, the peaceful coexistence provides a solid basis for the development of relations between the two countries in their mutual interest.

Asked about his new position in Israel, Katriel Salmon said that during his recent visit to his home country, he managed to secure a job to which he aspired for a long time, but he cannot yet speak about it.

Before concluding, Katriel Salmon addressed comrade Eduard Mezincescu a personal request, saying literally, “the dignitary who leaves dares to ask for a favour” namely to support the definitive departure of four families from P.R.R., four cases in relation to which he has obligations and is related personally and for which he intervene as a citizen and not as the Minister of Israel. Favourable settlement of these four cases, which he will send to the Consular Department, will be a proper gift from the Romanian side, for his departure from Bucharest.

Eduard Mezincescu reminds the Minister of Israel that for resolving this kind of requests, which are strictly internal matters of our country, the Romanian government expressed its concern in relation to the human aspect of family reintegration issue.

Regarding the four cases subject of the Mr. Salmon presentation, Edward Mezincescu said that they will be examined very carefully, adding that he cannot promise anything, but he will send Salmon a gift, so that his request will not remain unanswered.


90


THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST

No. 38 129/A - B September 10, 1963, Tel Aviv, 15.03 h Top Secret At the reception offered by the Bulgarian Legation, I had a discussion with Dov Satat,

deputy director of the Eastern Europe Department within the Israeli M.F.A, who informed me about the following:

1. During the last couple of days, the leadership of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry appointed the new Minister of Israel in P.R.R. The reason for this appointment was Israel would to maintain and develop the “good relations between the two countries”. The approval will be requested after the New Year holidays (19-20 September this year). M.F.A. believes

153

that the new Minister will arrive in late October in the P.R.R. Dov Satat further asked if P.R.R. intends to appoint a Minister in Israel, I replied that, as far as I know, no new developments occurred after the departure from the country of Mr Katriel.

2. Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry follows the economic developments of P.R.R. with great interest and considers the results achieved by our people in the country’s industrialization and the technical equipment in agriculture.

Also, M.F.A. believes that Romanian science advanced in the last couple of years at the international level, in a number of areas and especially on a technical level. Considering P.R.R. industrial development and the international economic conjecture of Israel (probably took into consideration Israel’s orientation in relation to the Common Market), the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry would be interested in “developing” the trade between P.R.R. and Israel.

According to Dov Satat opinion, there are chances that the annual volume of commercial transactions with Israel to reach the level of Israeli-Yugoslav trade relations ($ 20 million from both sides). Also, P.R.R. would get, through Israel, certain industrial products from capitalist countries. On this issue, I just thank him for the assessments made about P.R.R.

3. Answering to my question, Satat said that during the forthcoming session of the U.N., Israel would support, as it did before, the thesis according to which the problem of Arab refugee will not be solved until peace is established in the area. At the same time, it is possible that Israel to declare that it is ready to receive a number of refugees and to contribute financially to install the refugees in the Arab countries.

(Ss) Covaci AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1963, f. 169-170.

91

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE USE O F

THE JORDAN WATERS AND THE ARAB LEAGUE

No. 74 515/A-B-C February 10, 1964, Tel Aviv, 16.30 h Top Secret. Post-haste On February 6, 1964, I was invited to the MFA, Eastern Europe Department, by its

Director, Moshe Avidan. Before me, it was invited the Minister of Yugoslavia in Tel Aviv. During the previous

week, there were also invited all the heads of diplomatic offices of the other socialist countries. Soviet Ambassador has not been invited.

At the same time, there were also invited some heads of capitalist diplomatic missions to the appropriate space department.

The Director Moshe Avidan said that he wants to inform, formally, by means of the Legation, about the position of the Israeli government because of the Conference of the Arab Heads of States in Cairo1).

1) Reference to the works of the first high level meeting of the Arab states, held between January 13-17, 1964, in Cairo, with the participation of heads of state or government from 13 countries. The conference adopted a Declaration emphasizing the need for Arab countries solidarity, parties’ agreement to settle differences and to strengthen the relationship between them. It was also decided to create an army of liberation of Palestine and that the heads of the Arab states to convene at least once a year.

154

In his presentation, Moshe Avidan focused on the statement made by Prime Minister L. Eshkol, in the Knesset, on January 20, 1964, the following important issues resulting.

1. E. Johnston analyzed the problem of using Jordan water for three years, upon which it was drawn up a plan for the overall regional water exploitation. Meanwhile, work was coordinated by Arab countries’ governments and Israel, through Johnston, accepting in principle the provisions (Johnston acted as representative of the U.S.A., who offered its good offices to regulate this issue).

2. The subsequent rejection of the plan by the Arab League (in 1958) was due to political reasons, Arab countries opposing in principle to any kind of cooperation, even indirectly, with Israel.

3. The refusal of the Arab countries to reach an agreement cannot impede (under the rules of international law) Israel’s right to exploit its water share according to the aforementioned plan.

4. Based on the same rules, the precedent of Jordan created, who in 1961 deviated Yarmouk [Yarmukh] waters.

5. The basin from which the water is drawn (Lake Kinneret) and the pumping station are located entirely within Israel territory.

6. Pumping the water from Lake Kinneret will not increase the level of salinity of the lower reach waters of Jordan, given that this already happened by diverting Yarmukh.

7. The intention of the Arab states to divert the streams of Jordan in Syria and Lebanon pursues a purely political purpose, unjustified economically, which would prejudice the interests of Israel. Such a measure will increase the salinity of Lake Kinneret, a proportion that would jeopardize agriculture in Israel.

8. To prevent this situation, the Israeli government decided to undertake political and diplomatic measures of explaining and clarifying the countries with which it maintained diplomatic relations.

9. He gave some documentaries (the aforementioned speech of the Prime Minister and several prospects), asking me to deliver them to the Foreign Affairs Ministry of P.R.R.

On this occasion, I took the stand to record those passed on by Moshe Avidan, taking the materials mentioned. I have said I will submit them to M.F.A. Same attitude was adopted by the Heads of Mission of other socialist countries.

(Ss) Popescu

AMFA, founds Telegram. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1964, f. 22-24.

92

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON

BILATERAL RELATIONS AND ON SUPPORTING ROMANIA’S CAN DIDACY AT THE U.N. CONFERENCE FOR TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT

No. 74 529 March 7, 1964, Tel Aviv, 16.30 h Strict Secret. Post-haste On March 5, 1964, I have met the General Director of Israeli M.F.A, Levavi Arieh. On this occasion, I have informed them that P.R.R. will run for the position of Vice-

president of the U.N. Conference for Trade and Development and, in this context, asking for

155

the support of the Israeli government. Also, I have submitted the aide-mémoire and the curriculum vitae.

Moshe Avidan, Space Director, also attended. In his answer, Levavi Arieh mentioned the following: The Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry will carefully analyze the request of P.R.R., to

which it will respond later on. However, a priori, it sends that the Israeli government regards favourably our requests. Also, they inform us that his government agrees with the P.R.R. opinion about the great importance of the conference for all countries and especially the least developed ones.

Based on the considerations mentioned above, Israel will run for the position of Vice-president, which will devolve to the Afro-Asian region. From his side, the Governor of the Bank of Israel, D. Horowitz1) will run.

Levavi added that he believes the Israeli delegation would vote in favour of the candidature of P.R.R., although the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry does not know up to this to date if other candidatures will be presented for the Eastern European countries.

Next, he wanted to emphasize that, in confidence, he is letting me know about the fact that the Israeli delegation will support the candidature of P.R.R., even if similar candidatures will be presented by the group of socialist countries in Europe.

In conclusion, Levavi „transiently” said that this support would not be unilateral, finishing by saying „in any case” our request is regarded favourably.

I have thanked for the amiability, mentioning that I will pass on his answer.

(Ss) Popescu


93


THE ISRAELI-AMERICAN RELATIONS

No. 74 544/A-B-C April 13, 1964, Tel Aviv, 14.45 h Top Secret. Post-haste On April 9, Meir Feldman1), Leading legal adviser of U.S. President concluded his visit

to Israel. During his stay in Israel, Meir Feldman had talks with the Prime Minister Levy Eshkol,

Vice-president of the Council of Ministers, Abba Eban2), the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Golda Meir, and a series of Israeli Zionist politicians and activists.

1) David Horowitz (1899-1979), Israeli economist and politician. Economic Director of the World Jewish Agency (1935-1948), General Director within the Ministry of Finances (1948-1952), Governor of the Bank of Israel (since 1954), International Bank for Reconstruction (1954) and President of the International Finance Corporation (since 1957). 1) Myer Feldman (1917-1980), American jurist. Special Adviser of “Security and Exchange Commission”; Executive Assistant of the President of the Commission (1949-1953), Advisor of “Senate Banking and Currency Committee” (1955-1957); professor at American University (1956-1959), Legal aid at the Senate, deputy adviser of the President J.F. Kennedy (1961-1963) and then, Leading legal adviser of the President L.B. Johnson (1964-1965).

156

Israeli political circles consider that the main purpose of the Meir Feldman visit was to prepare the visit, in June, of the Prime Minister Levy Eshkol, in the U.S. During the talks with Israeli authorities was agreed that Levy Eshkol to discuss with Johnson3) about Israel safety issues, Israeli-American cooperation in seawater desalination and developments in the Jordan region, following the Arab Conference in Cairo, in January this year. On his turn, the U.S. President will raise with the Israeli Prime Minister the issue of military nuclear research in Israel, the situation of Arabs refugee in Palestine and the evolution of the Israeli-Arab relations, in view of the conflict on the exploitation of the Jordan.

Referring to Israel’s security problems, Liberal MP Abramov said that Levy Eshkol will ask President Johnson for explicit guarantees in terms of Israel’s security, in the form of a unilateral declaration or a friendship and security agreement as soon as possible. Also, Levy Eshkol will insist on the delivery of modern American arms to Israel and obtaining loans to pay for the weapons to be purchased. The main argument invoked by Eshkol will be the so-called change of balance of forces in favour of the Arab countries because of Soviet and Czechoslovak arms supply, and West German and U.A.R. technicians and scientists’ activity.

In terms of seawater desalination, Eshkol will request President Johnson to conclude concrete agreements that pave the way to an extensive Israeli-American cooperation in this field. Also, he will ask the USA for political support in order to commission Tiberias-Negev pipeline (Jordan’s pipeline), scheduled for mid-year.

Political observers and diplomatic circles in Israel estimates that the U.S. administration will adopt its own position during the negotiations with Levy Eshkol, pursuing both to obtain the votes of the Jewish population in the upcoming elections, as well as to promote American interests in the Arab countries.

In this respect, one mentioned the visit of the Under State Secretary Talbot4), in some Arab countries and the conclusions of the conference of American diplomats from Arab countries, which was held recently in Beirut, on intensifying the actions to counter the growing influence in the socialist bloc. The Israeli government is aware of this. Yet, Levy Eshkol will try to obtain from the U.S. commitments as concrete as possible, exploiting the pre-election situation in the USA, favourable to Israel.

Eshkol visit is part of the Israeli government’s political orientation towards the USA. For this reason, pro-French orientation militarist circles intensified their public attacks against U.S. policy towards Israel, aiming to discredit it in the eyes of public opinion. In this regard, we mentioned the statement of Agriculture Ministers, Moshe Dayan, which coincided with the arrival of Meir Feldman, saying that the U.S. Administration presents itself as a friend of Israel, especially for electoral purposes.

(Ss) Covaci


2) Abba Eban (1915-2002), Israeli politician and diplomat. Head of the Arab Middle East Centre in Jerusalem; member of the Jewish Agency (1946); ad interim representative (1948), then standing member (1949-1959) of U.N., Ambassador in Washington (1950-1959); Minister without portfolio (1959-1960), Deputy Prime Minister (1963-1966), Foreign Affairs Minister (1966-1974). 3) Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973), American politician, leader of the Democratic Party. Vice-president (1961-1963) and, after the assassination of J.F. Kennedy, President of U.S. (1963-1969). 4) Phillips Talbot (b. 1915), expert on Near East and South-East Asia problems, Understate Secretary of U.S. (1961-1965).

157

94

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU M ĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON 1),

THE NEW ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTEN TIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING

THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 2 429/3 864 June 9, 1964, Bucharest Top Secret On June 5, 1964, at 13,00, comrade Corneliu Mănescu, Foreign Affairs Minister of P.R.

of Romania met Zvi Ayalon, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Israel in Bucharest, at his request, as regards the forthcoming submission of the credentials.

Comrade Ambassador Dionisie Ionescu, Protocol Director within M.F.A, attended the meeting.

Costache Zavu, Secretary III within M.F.A., assisted as interpreter. Corneliu Mănescu welcomed Zvi Ayalon in P.R.R. and expressed his hope that he will

succeed in his mission and he will enjoy the time spent in our country. Zvi Ayalon thanked and expressed his hope that he will enjoy the time spent in P.R.R.

Thanking for the amiability, he expressed his hope that he will contribute to the development of friendly relations between Israel and P.R. of Romania and he said he would make every effort in this direction.

Then he asked Comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu to express his opinion on the general situation, in the current period.

Corneliu Mănescu replied that this question would require a lot of time and space, being a very complex problem. Then, he continued noting that the general situation is characterized by development efforts in order to create a better life, by achieving the independence of the nations that previously were not in charge of their fate and, primarily, through the efforts of maintaining peace and avoiding a new conflagration. This is the view we support and for which we stand for.

Zvi Ayalon stated that he agrees with this characterization and then he stated that his

country also strives for similar purposes, but, unlike P.R. of Romania, which is a country with many resources, Israel is characterized by large expanses of desert land, a bright sun and little rain. In addition, in Israel, only 2.5 million people live, while P.R. of Romania many more.

Corneliu Mănescu said that, regardless of size, both are states, Romania is bigger than

Israel, other countries are bigger than Romania, but all states are equal. In international relations there cannot be states believing they have special rights because they are bigger, nor super states having the right to interfere in the affairs of other states. We do not meddle in the affairs of other states and we do not allow others to interfere in our affairs and we want to develop good relations with all countries, on an equal basis.

1) Zvi (Tsvi) Ayalon (1911-1993), Israeli diplomat. Born in Kiev, emigrated to Palestine with his parents in 1923. He attended the School “Reali” and the School of Agriculture. He was part of “Haganah”, and in 1948, he became a brigadier general in the Israeli army. Before his mission as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in Bucharest (June 12. 1964- 3 Jun. 1966), he was Sub-director General in the Ministry of Defence. AMFA, 10/Foreign Representatives matter, Israel, file A-63, f. 5.

158

Then, comrade Corneliu Mănescu asked Zvi Ayalon if he had the opportunity to visit Bucharest and he said he had not had the chance, but he intends to so in the future, saying that only by walking, visiting, talking and seeing can form a general picture of what is happening in the country and intends to make all efforts so that to get to know our country.

In the same train of thoughts, Minister Corneliu Mănescu recalled that last year he met in New York with the Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister, Golda Meir, with whom he had a discussion and Zvi Ayalon stated that she is a very energetic woman, full of personality, the only Minister woman in the Israeli government.

Speaking about his own activity, Ayalon said that at the age of 16 he joined the Military Organization “Haganah”, which led Israel’s liberation fight. At first, “Haganah” did not think it would be necessary to fight against the British, but circumstances forced it and it became clear that without it the independence of Israel would not be achieved, despite U.N. Decision2).

To the question addressed by Minister Corneliu Mănescu about the former Israeli Minister, Katriel Salmon, Ayalon’s predecessor, he stated that Salmon decided to set up in business, on his own.

Towards the end of the meeting, Zvi Ayalon submitted a copy of his letter of accreditation and the one recalling his predecessor, and after the meeting he arranged, in principle, with the Ambassador, comrade Dionisie Ionescu, how one would proceed to submit the credentials.


AMFA, Israel matter. Problem 220/1964, unpaged.

95

SUMMARY REGARDING THE IMPACT OF THE DECLARATION OF

THE APRIL PLENARY OF C.C. OF ROMANIAN LABOUR PARTY IN ISRAEL

June 10, 1964, Tel Aviv

I. Assessments of Israeli C.P and of some socialist diplomats regarding the Plenary Declaration of R.L.P.’s C.C since April 1964

Comrade Shmuel Mikunis, General Secretary of Israeli C.P, informed us [on 23 May]

that the meeting of I.C.P’s C.C of this May 21, with the regional secretaries of the party, presented brief information on the Plenary Declaration of R.L.P.’s C.C of April 1964. Those present followed carefully the presentation of comrade S. Mikunis exposure, expressing their interest to understand the R.L.P. position regarding the unity of the international communist and Labourist movement.

2) On November 29, 1947, UN General Assembly adopted the Resolution 181 (II) on Palestine, which stipulated the establishment, until October 1, 1948, of two states, Arab and Jewish, and the establishment of Jerusalem city in “corpus separatum”, under a special international regime. British troops were to withdraw until August 1, 1948. The plan was rejected by Palestinian Arab leaders and by the Arab states. On December 15, 1947, Great Britain announced that, subject to UN approval, it would resign on May 15, 1948. In the afternoon of May 14, 1948, hours before the expiration of the British Mandate, in Tel Aviv, the State of Israel was proclaimed. The night of May 15, it was recognized by the U.S. and on May 17 by the Soviet Union. See also transcript note 3, doc. no. 1.

159

After the presentation, some participants have stated briefly their opinion on the Declaration, emphasizing that the problem of the international communist and labourist movement unity is one of the main tasks of all communist and labourist parties. Thus, participants in the discussions appreciated as positive the action of R.L.P. to strengthen the unity of the socialist bloc and the world communist movement and to put an end to the public controversy. Participants also showed that in matters of peace and war and of the national liberation movement and the prospects of the communist movement, the R.L.P.’s position “is very close or even identical with the C.P.S.U position”.

The participants in the discussions were also interested to know more details about R.L.P. position on the subject of economic cooperation between the socialist countries in the C.M.E.A. In this regard, no comments were expressed, either positive or negative, on R.L.P. position, emphasizing only that in the current circumstances the economic cooperation between the socialist countries plays an important role in the economic race with the capitalist system, as this cooperation should be based on those principles and methods that ensure a harmonious interconnectivity of the interests of each socialist country with the interests of the entire socialist bloc.

Some participants in the discussion expressed the opinion that R.L.P. should have definitely pointed out the incorrect position of the Chinese comrades regarding certain aspects of international communist and labourist movement. Comrade Shmuel Mikunis explained that it would be “a tactical problem”, reflecting R.L.P.’s position regarding the methods, ways and forms of resolving the dispute in the world communist and labourist movement.

Referring to the Declaration of the C.C of R.L.P., comrade S. Mikunis said during a casual conversation with us that, in his opinion, the Declaration is a logical continuation of the 3rd Congress of R.L.P., in terms of country industrialization and perfecting the basis of socialist system in P.R.R. The Declaration underlines, correctly, that only through socialist industrialization the socialist system can be built, it can ensure the transition to the establishment of the communist system by all socialist countries, within the same historical era and equalization of economic development levels of all socialist countries.

The promotion of a consistent policy of country’s industrialization is a powerful mobilizing factor for the people, who know that everything that builds, that all its efforts are directed to the development of the country, raising its living standard. This is what comrade Shmuel Mikunis could notice during his often visits to P.R.R.

In conclusion, comrade S. Mikunis said that he “sees nothing wrong” in the fact that a socialist country or sister party has its own position on certain issues of foreign policy and socialist construction, “under Marxist-Leninist general principles”. From the tactical point of view, maybe it is even better that the position of the socialist countries is not “identical” for all international problems so that not to allow the bourgeoisie to qualify some socialist countries as “satellites” of the Soviet Union.

Socialist diplomats contacted by us, during that period, refrained from appreciating the Declaration of the C.C of R.L.P. The First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy, I. Dedulia, and the Charge d’affaires ad interim of the S.R. of Czechoslovakia, Milan Jurza, expressed their request to receive the Declaration to inform on PMR position regarding the international communist and Labourist movement. Ivan Dedulia considered [on May 14] that in matters of peace and war, the foreign policy orientation of the socialist bloc, the Declaration of the C.C of R.L.P. is based on the decisions of the Moscow conferences in 1957 and 1960. The Declaration contains some “own” positions of the R.L.P. in matters of economic cooperation between the socialist countries and of resolving their differences with world communist and Labourist movement. According to him, the unit will be provided through a “collective response” to the thesis and the incorrect position of C.P. of China leaders”.

160

Milan Jurza [on June 4] understood from the Declaration of C.C of R.L.P. that our party constantly tried to settle the disagreements between CPSU and C.P. of China. From the Declaration it results, in his opinion that the Chinese comrades did not agree to pursue the initiative of PMR to cease the public controversy. Also, the Declaration criticizes the position of C.P. of China also in terms of certain substantive problems.

Comrade Jurza said next that, until now, C.P. of China undertook several actions to undermine the unity of Czechoslovak C.P. In this respect, he said that on May 9th 1964 – National Day of S.R. of Czechoslovakia – he received a letter from C.P. of China proposing to fight against the current leadership of the Czechoslovak C.P, for “restoring Czechoslovak C.P on Marxist-Leninist positions” .

The letter shows that Czechoslovak C.P proved its heroism previously, firmly standing for the liberation of the country along with the other sister parties, under the guidance of the great Stalin. In the last years, Czechoslovak C.P – reads the letter – has an attitude of “slave” towards the CPSU and N.S. Khrushchev in person, slipping down the slope of modern revisionism. The letter, then calls on comrade Milan Jurza, as a conscious party member, to mobilize the masses of party members to remove the current leadership of Czechoslovak C.P.

Similar letters were received by all heads of diplomatic missions of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia from the capitalist countries. At the same time, Czechoslovak missions in capitalist countries, systematically, receive Albanian and Chinese political literature in Munich, where the main fugitives from the S.R. of Czechoslovakia are located.

In conclusion, comrade Milan Jurza said that through the action methods practiced by the Chinese comrades “the atmosphere of relations between the sister parties are increasingly poisoned” .

II. Assessments of the Head of Eastern Europe Department of Israeli MFA,

Moshe Avidan, on the divergence between the CPSU and C.P. of China Moshe Avidan believes that, in the current phase, ideological aspects are nothing but an

“outer cover” of the divergence between the C.P.S.U. and Chinese C.P. Moshe Avidan was assigned by the Israeli MFA to prepare documentary paper, analytical, on the divergences between C.P.S.U. and C.P. of China and the implications that they may have internationally. From the study of “numerous formal and informative materials,” Moshe Avidan concluded that the Soviet-Chinese differences cover, in fact “the entire scope of the economic, politic, border, etc. relations between the two countries”.

Soviet-Chinese economic divergences were generated, in Moshe Avidan opinion, by the needs of P.R. of China to get a more substantial aid from the Soviet Union, in developing the country and raising the living standards and by Soviet Union’s refusal to satisfy these needs as a result of its interests in other parts of the world (Algeria, U.A.R., Africa and Asia and so on), which can be strengthened only through massive economic aid. This situation led Chinese leaders to emphasize “the thesis of building socialism by own powers” and a certain suspicion from the Soviet authorities, which was reflected, particularly, in the relations with Soviet specialists. On their turn, the Soviet authorities took “overnight” steps to recall the specialists, obviously taking the form of “economic pressure”, which led to worsening of the relations between the two countries.

In terms of politics, the interests of the two countries “are opposites” in many parts of the world and especially in Asia and Africa. Both sides seek to isolate each other in the “developed countries”. Both sides conduct their relations with the developed capitalist countries so that to “obtain own advantages and promote their political and ideological line”.

In the opinion of Israeli M.F.A, the Soviet Union will continue in the future the efforts to improve the relations and international collaboration with the U.S., while P.R. of China

161

“seeks to establish relations with the Federal Republic Germany”, exploiting for this purpose the “good offices” of France.

From the above, Israeli M.F.A concluded that, in the future, it will continue “the gradual disintegration of the political and military alliances, both in the West and in the East, and the reaffirmation of national ego”.

Next, Moshe Avidan said that according to the information of Israeli MFA “territorial conflicts between P.R. of China and the Soviet Union have a very pronounced character. The Soviet Union does not want to change the “historical borders” between the two countries, while P.R. of China consistently seeks their restoration. In this sense, Moshe Avidan concluded that P.R. of China will raise, in the future, also the issue of “Outer Mongolia”. He presented the interview given by Comrade Mao Zedong to the British journalist, Edward Snowman, in 1963, which stating “the time will come when the entire territory of Mongolia will be part of China”.

In conclusion, Moshe Avidan qualified the action of R.L.P. to solve the dispute between C.P.U.S and Chinese C.P. as “bold” and “full of responsibility”. He also expressed his scepticism about the success of the measures taken by R.L.P., noting that for the moment the actions of R.L.P. and of other communist parties (Italian C.P, Polish U.L.P., etc.) could lead, in the best case scenario, to the “mitigation of the public controversy” and to create favourable conditions for initiating negotiations. Time works in favour of R.L.P. position, because, sooner or later, all communist parties will realize that the schism has to be avoided in the name of their supreme interests.

[Ss] Popescu


96


THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ROMA NIA AND THE RELATIONS WITH THE OTHER SOCIALIST STATES

No. 74 624/A-B-C August 26, 1964, Tel Aviv, 20.50 h Top Secret. Post-haste At the meeting of August 25, Golda Meir began her presentation with a history of Israeli

foreign policy, noting that the Israeli government seeks to coexist peacefully in this part of the world and to have close relations with all countries, regardless the ideological conception of their governments. Golda Meir said that since the establishment of Israel, it sought to establish relations with the Western countries and those in the Eastern Europe, whom I asked for help in solving its problems. The one, as well as the others have agreed to assist them during training and consolidation period, including military assistance from the Soviet Union and S.R. of Czechoslovakia. Subsequently, some socialist countries like P.R. of Bulgaria, P.R. of Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania showed more consistency, proving an attitude of understanding and humanitarianism in relation to the issue of family reunification.

This history was completed with some excerpts from the discussions she had with Vyshinsky, Gromyko, Adam Rapacki, etc., at that time, in terms of relations development.

Referring then to P.R.R., she highlighted P.R.R. Government’s special attitude towards Israel, which with small pauses have constantly manifested throughout the period, proving an attitude of profound humanitarianism.

162

At the same time, the prestige gained by the P.R.R. at the international level was underlined, as the result of the hard work and the wisdom proven, occupying a well-deserved place among the important states.

Next, she said that the Israeli government followed with great interest P.R. of Romania actions in terms of foreign relations, but also the economic ones, underlining the results and the favourable echo of the visits of the P.R.R. government delegations in U.S.A.1) and France2).

She mentioned, in the introduction, that the Israeli government is very pleased with the attitude of the Romanian government, and that the two countries have normal diplomatic, commercial and tourist relations. Based on this finding, Golda Meir said that a few days ago, while talking to Levy Eshkol, reached the conclusion that it would be for the best to present openly their opinion and for this purpose inviting us at the Ministry.

Also, she wanted to explain that although the level of diplomatic representation is only symbolic, yet she believes it was lagging behind the level reached on the substantive issues of bilateral relations. As such, she would like to propose raising the level of diplomatic representation, adding that the Israeli side is ready, at any moment, to send an Ambassador to Bucharest.

Some actions that might result in an agreement could also be undertaken in the commercial direction, where, although both sides took steps, there are still many possibilities to prospect, based on mutual benefit.

Further, she added that, in consideration for the P.R.R. government, the Israeli government would like to propose a different kind of support, namely to intervene in the removal of any obstacles that would appear in its relations with the USA and France regarding economic issues (major investments, loans and so on). She said that it is not a direct support, because Israel does not have such resources, but if it is deemed appropriate, she could successfully appeal to Jewish personalities of political and economic life of the USA and France, which are strongly attached to Israel.

In order to express the esteemed consideration of some government members for P.R.R., she said that some time ago, Moshe Dayan, Minister of Agriculture, said he would like very much to know on the spot the results of agricultural sector development in the P.R.R.

She concluded by recalling the interesting conversation that she had in 1963, in New York, with the comrade Minister C. Mănescu.

Moreover, she added that if it is intended to respond to the aforementioned, she is preparing to receive it, regardless the location, even during an international conference, reminding that she will participate in Rhodesia independence anniversary, in October, where P.R.R. will probably be represented.

The meeting lasted 40 minutes. Doron3), the new Director of Area, also attended the meeting. He did not address me any question and I did say anything to him. To those mentioned above added a number of collateral explanations, expressing my concern for

1) It is about the visit of the Romanian government delegation, led by Corneliu Mănescu, taking place in the period 18 May-1 June 1964, in Washington, which negotiated with U.S. Administration. In this context, there were established, mutually, a series of measures meant to further improve the bilateral relations, among which raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy, on June 1, 1964. 2) In the period 27-31 July 1964, the President of Romania’s Council of Ministers paid an official visit in France, where he have met and discussed with President Charles de Gaulle. 3) Eliezer Doron (1910-1982), Israeli diplomat. Born in Chişinău, he attended the High Institute for Jewish Sciences in Berlin and the University of Frankfurt. In 1948 he joined the diplomacy. Consul in Zurich (1949-1952), New York (1952-1954), Director of Cultural Relations (1954-1958), Ambassador to Chile (1958-1963). Between 1964-1966 he was the Director of the Department of East European Countries within the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry. Envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary minister in Bucharest (28 Dec. 1966-17 April 1969). See AMFA, founds 10/ Foreign representatives. Israel, f. D-71, f. 16.

163

Israel’s peaceful work, living conditions improvement, transformations that took place in Israel during the last 16 years, etc. I promised that I would inform the M.F.A. of P.R.R. on the content of the issues raised during the meeting.

(Ss) Popescu


97

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GRIGORE GEAM ĂNU, SECRETARY OF THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ISS UE OF

THE EMIGRATION OF THE ROMANIAN CITIZENS TO ISRAEL

No. 16 September 3, 1964, Bucharest Top Secret On August 31, 1964, comrade Grigore Geamănu1), Secretary of the State Council, met

Zvi Ayalon, Minister of Israel in Bucharest. Boris Rangheţ, trainee attaché within MFA, assisted as interpreter. Grigore Geamănu, welcoming the Minister of Israel, said that P.R. of Romania has

many friends in Israel, which contributes to maintaining excellent relations between our countries. Next, comrade Gr. Geamănu noted that between the two countries there are good relations with future development prospects.

Zvi Ayalon confirmed that our country has many friends in Israel and said that out of a total population of 2.3-2,400,000 inhabitants, about 300,000 are from Romania. He noted that, as pointed out in the discussion he had with comrade Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, President of the State Council, between the two countries there are no contentious issues, which offers the possibility of developing Israel-P.R.R. relations.

Zvi Ayalon said that he is in Romania for a short while and, consequently, he only found out about the achievements of our economy from our media in German (which he speaks). He asked what to visit first in P.R.R.

Grigore Geamănu said that first the large objectives have to be visited, for example on the route Piteşti-Slatina-Craiova-Hunedoara-Braşov and then Braşov-Bacău – descending towards the south of Moldova, to get an overview of the achievements of recent years, then passing thorough study of the country’s wealth and the way we use it.

Zvi Ayalon said that, unlike our country, Israel is not rich in natural resources. He said that the Israeli people have to work hard to capitalize available arable land, of which only one third is irrigated.

Grigore Geamănu said he is convinced that the Israeli people, known for their talent, intelligence and skills will be able to turn their country into a flourishing garden.

1) Grigore Geamănu (1903-1985), Romanian lawyer and politician. Graduated and Doctor of Laws at the Faculty of Law in Paris. Under Secretary of State within the Ministry of Home Affairs (1945-1948), Deputy Minister of Public Works (1948-1949). Between 1949-1952 was the Prime arbiter of State Arbitration attached to the Council of Ministers. Since 1949, professor and between 1957-1959, Dean of the Faculty of Law, Bucharest. Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister to Berne (1959-1961) and Ankara (1968-1971). Secretary of the State Council (1961-1967).

164

Zvi Ayalon said thanks for the appreciation offered to the qualities of his people, and said that the immigration process, which goes on in his country, absorbed thousands and tens of thousands of new citizens, who were illiterate, especially those who came from Arab countries, they learn to work just now.

Zvi Ayalon asked, further, what is the difference between the powers of the State Council and those of the Council of Ministers.

Grigore Geamănu explained to the Israeli Minister the principle of power uniqueness, based on which are organized state power bodies in our country. Next, Gr. Geamănu spoke about the organization and duties of the State Council, which is one of the supreme bodies of the state power, compared with the Council of Ministers, which is the supreme body of state administration, the executive body. Also, speaking of our parliamentary system, Gr. Geamănu presented the fundamental differences between the old faked and undemocratic electoral system and the current one, infinitely superior through its democracy.

Zvi Ayalon thanked for the explanations received and asked Gr. Geamănu what to do to contribute to the development of the relations between our countries.

Grigore Geamănu advised Israel’s Minister to act in this direction, by establishing contacts and promoting all initiatives in this line. And maintain a close relation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.



98

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF POMPILIU MACOVEI, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH

ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PLANNED VISIT OF THE TEL AVIV MAYOR I N ROMANIA

No. 16 061 September 3, 1964, Bucharest Top Secret On September 3 this year, at 9.30, comrade Pompiliu Macovei, Deputy Minister, met

Zvi Ayalon, Israel’s Minister, at his request. Comrade Vladimir Vîşinschi, attaché, also assisted. After an interchange of civilities, Z. Ayalon said the following: The Israeli government hopes that Mordechai Namir, mayor of Tel Aviv, attending the

twin cities conference in Warsaw (September 1964), will be able to pay a visit to Bucharest, to meet with the President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gheorghe Maurer1 and to send him a message from the Israeli Prime Minister, L. Eshkol, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Corneliu Mănescu. Of course, he would be pleased happy if he could also meet the President of the State Council, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej.

1) Ion Gheorghe Maurer (1902-2000), Romania jurist and politician, leader of the Communist Party (R.L.P.). Member of C.C. (since 1945), the S.C of C.C. (1960-1965), the Executive Committee and of the Standing Presidium of C.C of R.C.P. (1965-1974). Understate Secretary within the Ministry of Communication and Public Works (1945-1946), the Ministry of National Economy (1946-1947) and the Ministry of Industry and Trade (1947-1948). Minister of Foreign Affairs (1957-1958); President of National Grand Assembly’s Presidium (1958-1961) and of the Council of Ministers (1961-1974).

165

During his stay in Warsaw, M. Namir will meet with the representatives of state leadership of P.R. of Poland. He said that M. Namir is a major figure in the Israeli State. He is a member of the supreme leadership of the ruling party MAPAI, a member of the Knesset Standing Committee on defence and Foreign Affairs (Israeli Parliament). In 1949-1951 he was Israel’s Ambassador in Moscow and in 1956-1959 Minister of Labour in the Israeli government.

Period suggested by the Israeli side for the visit is the interval between 18 and 25 September this year. Z. Ayalon specified that the proposal of the visit would depend on whether is achievable and convenient for the Romanian side in all respects.

P. Macovei said he would send, as soon as possible, the proposal received. As far as we known, it is a busy period for the leadership of the state, which has many engagements, some planned before, but no one doubts that Israeli government request will be examined very carefully.

Z. Ayalon said that he understood the situation and if the proposed period is not convenient, the visit could be postponed.

P. Macovei said that he would consider this suggestion too, which will be examined along with the others presented by the Minister of Israel, who will be announced in advance on the response of the Romanian side. He asked Z. Ayalon if he is aware of the problems they intend to discuss with M. Namir in Bucharest and if, on this occasion, he will pay similar visits in other countries too.

Z. Ayalon said that considering the information he has, it is a goodwill visit, during which general discussions are foreseen. Yet, specifically, we do not know which subjects M. Namir will address. We do not know if the visit will expand to other countries, but, personally, I believe not, outside Poland. He requested that the answer to be sent personally, given that the problem, which it deems confidential at this stage, it is not known by anyone in Israel Legation and, in this context, he would like to know when he might have an answer, because between September 9 and 11, he will not be in Bucharest.

P. Macovei said that the Legation will announce him when he can return to the Ministry, without communicating the purpose of the invite.

However, Israel’s Minister will further discuss this issue with E. Mezincescu, Deputy Minister, who returns from his leave one of these days.

In conclusion, Z. Ayalon thanked for the amiability shown during the meeting. The meeting lasted 30 minutes.


99

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, W ITH

ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE JEWISH EMIGRATION FROM R OMANIA

AND BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 2 929 December 8, 1964, Bucharest Top Secret On December 3, 1964, 13.30 hours, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, President of the Council of

Ministers, had an official meeting with Z. Ayalon, Israel’s Minister.

166

Z. Ayalon stated that it gives him great pleasure and he is honoured to meet the President of the Council of Ministers and to know him personally.

Ion Gheorghe Maurer said, in his turn, that it gives him great pleasure to meet the Minister of Israel. He added that he could not meet him until now, because he was abroad for a long time and meanwhile, many other problems added up.

Z. Ayalon wanted to express the gratitude of the Israeli government for the Romanian government, who, based on humanitarian considerations, allowed the Jews who want to reunite with their families and relatives in Israel, to leave the country.

He stated that, in his opinion, when a person born and educated in a country wants to go abroad, there is an unfavourable situation for the state. Jews, however, represent a separate problem. They have endured a lot and therefore have created a psychology aiming to ensure freedom and their existence as a nation.

Ion Gheorghe Maurer said that there are people who believe it will be better elsewhere, whom their families are calling or there are interests, etc. They can leave. There are people who want to stay and they are staying. Of course, among those who leave and among those who stay may be people who disagree with our system. Since ancient times has been discovered that you cannot prevent someone from thinking, to reveal his thoughts, his innermost feelings, to annihilate their strength and faith in something. Thus, we gained certain wisdom in dealing with human problems and, looking into the future. One might say that, in terms of philosophy, this wisdom is an expression evolved from the instinct of preservation meaning, not to be prevented from thinking and living according to own aspirations and leaving others to do just the same. But, it is not about this. Problems of different people leaving P.R.R. are regarded much easier. Obviously, there may be some difficulties, but proceeding with patience, calm, sparing some susceptibility, these types of problems directly resolved, without appealing to philosophy.

Humanitarian considerations of our policy are renowned and they have not changed a bit.

Z. Ayalon said that, as regards this aspect, Israeli government appreciation and gratitude is even higher. Further, he referred to Israeli government will to extend the framework of the relations with P.R.R. to all areas. Israel has already taken some initiatives in this regard and, in his opinion, it is necessary for both sides to make efforts to improve bilateral relations. This is in the practical interest of both countries, and, in a wider sense, it would bring some contribution to improving the international atmosphere.

Ion Gheorghe Maurer said the Romanian government values the acts of goodwill shown by the Israeli government in dealing with P.R.R. He knows, personally, the contents of conversation between our Charge d’affaires a.i. and Golda Meir, Israel’s Foreign Minister, in Tel Aviv. Of course, there is room for developing P.R.R.-Israel relations, primarily in economics, which is the basis of any relation.

We know that in Israel people work, create and have things to trade. We, too, create and exchange products. Thus, there are conditions to broaden trade relations, regardless of political differences. If we are to develop trade, for which optimal conditions are met, gradually, we can get to other areas too.

Z. Ayalon concurred, saying that he is concerned with this aspect. He exemplified through the possibility that Israel to import meat from P.R.R., which is of very high quality (in P.R.R., there is a delegation negotiating with the Romanian bodies a transaction on meat imports). Then he said that although Israel is a small country, however, in his opinion, there are areas where Romanian specialists might find interesting things, for example in agriculture (aviculture). Israel would like to invite to Israel a delegation of Romanian specialists in agriculture. He referred to the fact that Israel is poor in raw materials and asked if they can buy from P.R.R. such vital products as, for example, oil.

167

Ion Gheorghe Maurer answered that trade can extend to any products the parties are interested in, considering the principle of mutual benefit.

He expressed his belief that on the Romanian market useful goods can be found in the Israeli economy and vice versa. We are prepared to sell any products, if it is in the interest to our partners. However, if we would have an atomic bomb, we would not sell it, he added jokingly.

Z. Ayalon said that also in the cultural field extensive relations are possible. For example, the troupe “Periniţa” enjoyed great success in Israel. Such cultural events might be undertaken in the future with greater intensity. Then, he referred to the Arab-Israeli relations, showing that both sides spend significant funds on unproductive purposes. Israel wants to live in peace with its neighbours, to have a better understanding, from which could benefit both Jews and Arabs. The Arabs claim that they are right and Israel that justice is on his side. Such complicated problem resembles to investigating what was first: the egg or the chicken.

Israel’s current position in its relations with Arab countries is explained by the aspirations of the Israelis to maintain their national being, to be free and independent. Passing through the ages through hard trials, they fear the recurrence of some new attempts to suppress the people of Israel.

Ion Gheorghe Maurer stated that, as we know, P.R.R. maintains good relations with some Arab countries. This, to be taken into account under the current situation, cannot stop us from to establish and develop relations with other countries, according to our mutual will. It is true that if we refer to foreign relations, the Arab-Israeli conflict does not bring us any good, yet sometimes losses. The problem is complex and an old saying states that in such cases both in yet neither.

However, this problem directly concerns the parties in question and it would be advised that they would try to find a solution for reconciliation, based on mutual interests respect [highlighted in text – our ref.].

Z. Ayalon asked what the prospects are foreseen for raising PRR-Israel diplomatic representation of the level of embassy. The Israeli government is always prepared to go on with the materialization of this action.

Ion Gheorghe Maurer said that, under the current international circumstances, such measures are generally desirable. It is however advisable to choose with discernment when and how to be realized, on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, Z. Ayalon expresses his cordial gratitude for his amiability. The meeting lasted approximately 60 minutes. V. Vîşinschi, attaché, was the translator


100


THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL CULTURAL EXCHANGES

No. 81 308/A-B January 20, 1965, Tel Aviv, 13.30 h (I); Top Secret. Urgent 13.50 h (II) In some discussions of Gheorghe Nedelcu, IInd Legation Secretary II, with Mordechai

Avida, Director of Relations within Israeli MFA, it follows that the Israeli side is

168

continuously concerned with the development of cultural, artistic and scientific exchanges, with all socialist countries, including P.R.R. Until the implementation of certain cultural agreements, Golda Meir had given indications to attempt the initiation and development of cultural exchanges on a commercial basis (managers) and based on a possible agreement between the two ministries, believing that this would be the most acceptable form with the socialist countries.

On this basis, the Cultural Department of Israeli MAF intends to resolve along with P.R.R. the following issues, in the near future:

1. Strengthen cultural exchanges based on managers, thus providing some sort of entrenchment of the cultural relations.

2. Overcome the unilateral phase and achieve some mutual actions, even if their acceptance would be foreseen in 2-3 years.

3. To reach some possible agreements on the line of the two ministries, because of personal contacts between the executives of the two cultural departments or other higher level representatives.

4. To broaden ties also in the field of cinematography, theatre and other cultural and cultural-scientific institutions.

To achieve such a plan, the Cultural Department expressed the following intentions: a) To continue sending invitations to the national and international conferences and

congresses held in Israel. b) To respond to the invitation received from P.R.R. c) To create the conditions for a possible meeting between the two heads of the Cultural

Department of the Romanian and Israeli M.F.A. in order to discuss the possibilities of developing cultural relations.

Discussions were held on the occasion of a reception given by the Embassy of Burma, which was attended also by comrade Nedelcu.

Our position has maintained on the line of listening, prompting to establish Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry intent in terms of the relations with the socialist states.

(Ss) Popescu


101


THE SITUATION OF THE JEWISH EMIGRATING FROM ISRAEL

No. 81 314/A-B February 2, 1965, Tel Aviv, 13.20 h (1); Top Secret. Urgent 13.35 h (II) About the Jews, who maintain their Romanian citizenship and after their arriving to

Israel presented to the Legation for registration, please be informed about the following: In the time frame January 7-February 1 this year, it was determined that most of those

seeking to be registered as Romanian citizens were elderly, who before leaving the country were retired or about to retire in the near future (68 out of 101 registered).

169

Along with the registration, some of them requested, under various forms, acts of length of service attesting the activities performed in P.R. of Romania or even acts proving that they received a pension until leaving P.R. of Romania.

Also, during the same time frame 23 senior citizens, who left P.R. of Romanian after 1950, presented at the Legation, requesting preparation of the necessary forms for the regaining Romanian citizenship, which was abandoned following the departure to Israel. Their stated purpose was that because of “feelings” for the P.R. of Romania, they want to regain their Romanian citizenship, which anyway would have been taken subsequent to leaving P.R. of Romania.

The discussions with Slociver Samuel, Schmidt Schmarije, Neghuj-Schwartz Eleonora, born in Bucharest, and Horovitz Mozes, in Oradea, all former retirees, emphasized the fact that the increasing number of Jewish citizens asking, under one form or another, to regain Romanian citizenship is the results of an encouraging action of Moldova „compensation and pensions Office” in Haifa (of which existence, we previously reported), which hopes that, this way, can much easily solve the issue of the „pension rights” to those who left Israel. About this category, so far I had a reserved attitude without preparing any form for clarifying citizenship or issue documents on work seniority.

(Ss) Popescu


102


THE THESES OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY ON THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE AND THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT

No. 81 327/A-B-C March 12, 1965, Tel Aviv, 14.00 h Top Secret. Urgent From some discussions and comments on the thesis of Israeli Communist Party

Congress, prepared by its Central Committee, it follows that most of them refers to the concept of solving the Palestinian problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

They emerge from the need to solve the Palestinian problem consensual, under the right to self-determination of both peoples.

In this context, one provides as first idea that to the Arab refugees to be recognized the right of returning or receiving compensation. The second idea is based on the consensual resolution of the territorial issue, based on negotiations between the representatives of Israelis and Arabs. The third idea stipulated the need of recognizing by the Arab states of Israel right to exist, its legal rights to free navigation in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, the cancellation of the Arab boycott, the division of water resources based on mutual agreement.

In defining the general political direction of the Israeli Communist Party, the theses were based on the idea of outright rejection of the Israeli government circles attitude towards the non-recognition of the rights of the Arab and Palestinian peoples and waging a sustained fight to change it, as it so categorically reject the non-recognition by the Arab government circles of Israeli state’s right to exist.

It is also against the false characterization, which attempts to deny the right to exist, in the sense that the State of Israel would be “a creation of the Anglo-American imperialism,” “an imperialist foothold”, “an imperial base” and so on.

170

Also, the same hostile attitude manifests itself in theses and towards the “adventurous” plans of the so-called “Palestinian Liberation Organization”, of “Palestinian Liberation Army” and so on, and to any other plans which “set forth” the need to liquidate the Israeli people and even banish them from their homeland.

At the same time, the theses, welcome the progressive transformation of several Arab countries thanked to their ties with the socialist countries, which will ultimately influence the peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict. By simultaneously presenting the two contradictory positions among some Arab states, it is estimated that if one would turn the blind eye to the positive developments in those Arab countries, a monumental national mistake would be made, just like turning the blind eye and adopt an insensitive position towards the destruction trends of Israel, it would lead to an error of “national nihilism”, “barren cosmopolitanism,” which has nothing in common with the proletarian internationalism.

The theses underline, at the same time, that the Israeli Communist Party adopted a hostile attitude towards the Israeli ruling circles guilty of Sinai and Suez aggression, the repelling of the Arab peasants from their lands and stirring the Israeli-Arab conflict. Also, it adopts the same attitude towards the Arab ruling circles statements that propagate the idea of destroying Israel, fostering anti-Arab militarism and chauvinism in Israel. One states that the Communist Party will fight with all his forces to recognize the legal rights of the Palestinian Arab people, as he will fight against any discrimination of the legitimate rights of the people of Israel.

It is believed that such a liquidation conception towards Israel is in contradiction with the Israeli people principle of self-determination and with the historical truth in the sense that the birth of the state of Israel occurred because of U.N. Decision, under the liquidation of colonialism movement in the Middle East and the rest of the world.

In conclusion, Congress thesis states that Israeli Communist Party denies in relation to the “Israeli-Arab” conflict any attitudes or hostile actions and statements wherever they come from, while laying out the path to peace for both peoples.

(Ss) D. Popescu


171

103

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU 1), ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA

IN TEL AVIV, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY A ND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 05/00226 February 3, 1966 Bucharest Top secret On February 2, 1966, 10.00 hours, comrade Valeriu Georgescu, the minister of the

Socialist Republic of Romania in Tel Aviv, made a protocol visit to Z. Ayalon, the minister of Israel in Bucharest. Vîşinschi Vladimir, III secretary of Vth Relations Division translated.

After an exchange of courteousness words, Z. Ayalon mentioned that he is at his addressee’s disposal in order to instantly answer to all questions he might have.

V. Georgescu said that, given his leave to Tel Aviv, he acquired a series of knowledge on Israel, which is, of course, lower than the multitude of real issues of that country. Therefore, he now has the feeling Z. Ayalon probably had at his arrival in Romania, meaning not knowing what to begin with.

Z. Ayalon mentioned that he can give certain explanations which, in his personal opinion, are essential for understanding the realities of Israel, and said that:

1. Israel’s main problem is ensuring the existence of the state and of the Israeli people. Israel’s military effort is oriented towards protection against the invasion which threatens the country due to the neighbours.

Israel has been and is always able to and has the corresponding military force to re-occupy the part of Palestine associated to Jordan after the war, but does not proceed so in order to maintain the peace.

Agreeing with the information exposed by the addressee, Z. Ayalon said that, in his opinion, there is the possibility that the economic relationships between the two countries develop. However, the related means and methods must be explored.

V. Georgescu said that, of course, there is room for expanding the Romanian-Israeli commercial trades, considering the mutual advantage principle, as well as the need to have a better knowledge on the export products’ range of both countries. Moreover, the two parties must be interested in developing the relationships in this respect and, as mister minister is aware of, Romania has shown such an interest. He mentioned that he is glad to represent Romania in Israel and expressed his belief that during his mission he shall be able to know this country and its people even better.

Z. Ayalon said that he wishes to invite V. Georgescu and his wife to spend an evening at his residence (dinner). He asked when V. Georgescu is to leave to Tel Aviv. V. Georgescu said that he might leave on February 7th 1966, and he gladly accepts Zvi Ayalon’s invitation.

(The dinner was established for February 6th 1966, 19.30 hours, Z. Ayalon mentioning that he will send “pour mémoire” invitations).

The meeting which took place in a friendly environment took 50 minutes.


1) Valeriu Georgescu (b. 1926), Romanian economist and diplomat. Deputy director in the MEA (1963-1965), envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary (1966-1969), then ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary in Tel Aviv (1969-1971); further on in the Guinea Republic, Sierra Leone Republic, Mali, Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde Islands (1973-1981) and in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore (1984-1990).

172

104

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZ INCESCU,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON RAISING THE REPRESENTATION LEVEL TO EMBASSY

No. 81 340 February 18, 1966, Tel Aviv, 13.55 h Top secret Urgent I consider the arrival of each of the three representatives of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of February 16, 1966 as amicable, with the purpose of evidencing the gladness they have towards the decision of the Romanian government to be represented in Israel by a minister.

Both E. Doron and A.Levavi expressed their desire to reach in the close future the raise of the representation level to embassy.

My answer during the conversations pointed out that in the context of the current international conditions, such manifestations are generally welcomed, but that it is best and necessary to be carefully chosen both the moment and the method of performing them.

E. Doron, in his conversations, also pointed out from the beginning the need of the “obligation” to reach a larger development of cultural relationships, considering the Israeli feature, almost unique in the world; when hundreds of citizens speak the language of our country, they also feel the need to keep their relationships with the culture of the country they left off. Tactfully approaching certain political aspects that preoccupy Israeli opinion, such as the visit of the minister of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.A., Canada, England [U.K.] and France, E. Doron explained that the main task was not to establish a contact with the liability factors of the main occidental powers, but to discuss certain issues in the region that concern Israel’s security.

E. Doron also evidenced that Israeli government intends to organize the continuation of Abba Eban’s trip in U.S.S.R., considering that solving the security issue of Israeli state may only be done by joint support of the four Great Powers (U.S.A., France, England [U.K.] and U.S.S.R.), the only ones able to ensure a balance in the region.

Until now there is no confirmation of such a trip. Both E. Doron and the general manager A. Levavi assured me of their permanent

support as often as necessary.


105

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO CORNELIU M ĂNESCU,

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE STATE OF ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIPS

No. 81341 February 22, 1966, Tel Aviv, 15.00 h Top secret. Post-haste On February 21, 9.30 hours, I was received by the ministry of Foreign Affairs, A. Eban.

After welcoming me, A. Eban shortly characterized the current state of the Romanian-Israeli

173

relationships, evidencing the fact that they are on a normal development path from political, economic and cultural point of view.

From a cultural point of view, as well as the area director E. Doron, the minister of Foreign Affairs evidenced that there is a wide development range, due to the existence of a mass of Romanian citizens that keep information means in Romanian language and that have organized different occupation circles and political organizations etc.

Asking about the evolution of the commercial relationships, at our remark that there are still difficulties in balancing the Romanian merchandise export, he added that this is, also, an improvement perspective. Referring to the principles of our external policy starting from the idea of understanding between peoples and of fighting for peace, he evidenced that they can have, in the Middle East area, as well, an educational role and a positive influence on the acceptance of cohabiting peoples.

We thanked for the beautiful wishes on occasion of occupying the position, also underlying that there is a certain basis that allows the continuity of commercial trades. Moreover, as concerns the political principles on the understanding between peoples, I consider that they have been expressed very clearly during the last U.N. meeting.

Taking the stand, A. Eban briefly presented the external policy of Levy Eshkol government, starting from certain points of the program statement exposed by the Prime Minister in January current year at the setup of the new cabinet.

In this context, he pointed out that the Israeli government wishes to develop the relationships based on full understanding, with all European countries, which it considers an entity divided by political barriers. He also underlined that in the circumstance provided by the Prime Minister he did not wish to expressly point out the good relationships established between Romania and Israel, their existence not imposing the presence of a real mention.

He also showed that he remembers with great pleasure the opportunity offered to him two years ago to meet comrade minister Corneliu Mănescu at the U.N., but that he did not have the possibility to maintain the contact, being obliged to return to Israel before the term, due to internal political reasons. He added that this first contact is only a beginning, being prepared to approach with other occasions the more profound political issues, also promising his support in fulfilling the entrusted mission.

I gave him, with this occasion, the copy of the letter of credence and re-summon of Dr. Petre Manu; moreover, I thanked for the reception and for the promise made to me.

The director of Protocol, Y. Gaulan, participated from the Israeli M.F.A. and the First Secretary Dumitru Popescu participated from the legation.


174

106


MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT ZALMAN SHAZAR A ND

THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISR AEL

No. 81 342 February 23, 1966, Tel Aviv, 13.25 h Top secret. Post-haste After reading the two speeches, adjourning in a part of the chamber with the President of

the State [Israel], Zalman Shazar1) and with the minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, we talked for about 20 minutes, according to the local fashion. During the discussions, the two addressees debated the following important aspects:

1. Standardization of diplomatic relationships between the two countries. 2. Contribution of Romanian Jews to building Israel. 3. Economic, social and cultural development of Romania. 4. Accomplishments of Israel in the economic and scientific field. 5. Greetings to the President of the State Council [Chivu Stoica] and prosperity to the

Romanian people. Characterizing the importance of the moment and of the Romanian-Israeli relationships,

the President of the State pointed out that my return in the office represents a standardization of the diplomatic relationships between the two countries, that both, he and the Israeli government fully support me in exercising the entrusted mission. He pointed out the fact that the Romanian Jews had an important contribution to building the Israeli State. Then he underlined Romania’s economic development and the richness of the range of material resources it has, stressing the fact that Romania is known as a great producer and importer of oil. He reminded the worldwide recognition of Romanian scientists and the role of Bucharest University in producing high qualifications. Then he mentioned the accomplishments in Israel in the economic and scientific research fields, among which some may be of interest for our country, for example pointing out the technical-scientific, agricultural fields and Weizmann research institute.

Intervening in the discussions, I thanked the President of the State for the reception and the greetings sent to the president of the State Council and to the Romanian people. I also gave details on our country’s development and on scientific researches. I evidenced the fact that Romania has developed a petrochemical industry that values in a superior manner its oil resources, thus becoming an important exporter of oil products (processed) and of oil-bearing tools on the international market.


1) Zalman Shazar (1889-1974), Israeli politician, editor chief of “Davar” daily paper of the Labour Party (1925-1949), member of Knesset (1949-1955); minister of Education (1949-1951), leader of education department of World Zionist Movement (1954-1963), President of the State of Israel (1963-1973).

175

107

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF

ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA

No. 15/1893 March 18, 1966, Bucharest On Wednesday, March 16 current year, 10.00 hours, Dionisie Ionescu, ambassador,

director of the Protocol, accepted in audience the minister of Israel in Bucharest, Zvi Ayalon, at his request.

Răducanu Graziella, main relationships referent at Protocol Division assisted. The visit lasted for 40 minutes. The Minister of Israel, Zvi Ayalon, said that he came to Protocol Division in order to

discuss two issues, meaning: 1. On Monday, April 25, current year, being the national holiday of Israel, the

Independence Day, the minister Zvi Ayalon will have a reception on this occasion. At the end of March he will send to Protocol Division the invitations for Romanian personalities, with the request to be submitted. Moreover, he was interested whether another event is programmed during that day.

2. The second issue concerns his final leave from Bucharest established around May 20-25 current year As concerns his final leave, he will send by mid April a Verbal Note to Protocol Division requesting the organization of his farewell visits to Romanian personalities.

Dionisie Ionescu answered to the minister of Israel that at this moment there is no protocol event programmed for April 25, current year and that the Protocol Division will ensure the submission of invitations for the reception programmed for the national day. Moreover, a competition will be held for organizing his farewell visits. He also asked if Zvi Ayalon is aware of the name of his successor.

The minister Zvi Ayalon answered that he is not aware of that name and that he hopes to be able soon to send the authorization application for the new Israeli minister.

Concluding, he also said that he personally took all the measures in order to develop the relationships between our countries and that he believes that the progresses are satisfactory and that there are still possibilities to extend these relationships.

A few days from now he will go to his Budapest colleague and that he will travel by car in order to have the possibility to see the beautiful northern area of our country.

Leaving, Dionisie Ionescu promised to the minister of Israel the entire support of Protocol Division in solving the issues related to his final resignation from this position, wishing him the best of luck in his future work related to the good relationships between our countries.


176

108

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF ROMANIA

IN TEL AVIV, WITH AVIEZER CHELOUCHE, DIRECTOR OF THE ECONOMIC DEPARTMENT OF THE M.F.A. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL,

REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL TRADE RELATI ONS

No. 1193 April 26, 1966, Tel Aviv Top secret On April 20, current year I had a conversation with Aviezer Chelouche, director of the

Economic Department of Israeli M.F.A., at his request. The purpose of the conversation was to analyze the economic and commercial relationships between Israel and our country. During the discussions, A. Chelouche approached, mainly, the following issues:

1. The recent study of Israel on the issues related to the economic and commercial relationships between Israel and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe resulted into the satisfactory fact that between 1961-1965 their total volume doubled in comparison to the previous period. However, this applies only to the other socialist countries except Romania, where the volume is maintained at the same low level, without registering increases, more or less substantial. Considering the economic accomplishments of the two countries, he considered that the situation is not at all satisfactory and that, due to political reasons, our country may be of no interest in developing commercial relationships with Israel.

2. The study of certain publications in our country referring to the economic policy of our country, resulted into the fact that our relationships with other countries tend more and more to the conclusion of commercial agreements and long term payments. In this case, the question is why not concluding such a long term agreement with Israel also? It is considered that at this moment, the conclusion of such an agreement would be in the benefit of both countries, being, in the same time a stimulant for increasing the volume of trades.

3. The S.R. of Romania has certain products among which meat and conventional fuel or diesel, which can ensure a good and long term market in Israel, as the consumption of the two merchandises is increasing. He raises this issue not because Israel needs these products and could not find in another place (it receives them from the socialist countries), but because such products would have a large outlet in Israel and Israel is ready to waive certain quantities it purchases from other countries only in order to develop the commercial relationships with our country. As concerns the other socialist countries, commercial relationships are increasing continuously, giving as example the two delegations, Polish and Yugoslavian, which are at this moment in Israel in order to study new development possibilities.

4. Israel – said A. Chelouche – made real steps in improving the commercial relationships, mentioning, for example, the sending of the commercial Israeli delegation in Romania and the approval of technical loan, but it did not always see the same attitude from Romania. In order to impulse the commercial relationships and broadly knowing the possibilities between the two parties, he considers necessary to proceed to a more frequent and larger exchange of delegations both as concerns the interested companies and the state bodies. As concerns the technical loan, this is not used yet, being granted only with the expectation to be a good start.

Israel considers that it is high time to take real measures, by both parties, in order to develop commercial relationships, to study the development conditions, the merchandise that would interest both parties, and then discuss the findings.

177

At the end of 1965 the volume of imports in Israel was approximately one million dollars higher than the volume of our exports towards Israel. Moreover, no satisfactory situation is foreseen for this year either in order to reach a certain balance. If the sale of Romanian merchandise is not stimulated, it would be possible that the situation remains improper, considering that our country purchases especially from where it can sell.

Considering all the above, we considered the conclusion drawn by the Israeli party that our country, due to certain political reasons, is not interested in developing the commercial relationships, as groundless.

As concerns the conclusion of a long term agreement, we pointed out that the existing one, concluded in 1954, whose lists are renewed yearly, even if it is older, it is fully valid at this moment also.

It is also true that our country is known as an old exporter of oil and meat products. Therefore, our products have acquired in time a certain name on different markets with an increasing request, and the agreements concluded until now cover the entire quantity of such products for export.

We will treat Israel’s request with benevolence, but this request may be met only to the extent we have additional quantities to the ones already undertaken for the other countries.

I am aware of the fact that the Israeli delegation that has recently visited Bucharest also discussed the meat import issue. If the quantity of one thousand tons ordered corresponds, the issue is to be further on discussed with the specialty bodies.

We agreed with the opinion of the Israeli party that the exchanges of delegations between the two countries may contribute to a better mutual knowledge as well as to stimulating the increase of commercial relationships volume.

All Israel delegations that wished to come to Bucharest were well received and will be well received in the future, as well.

As we know, our commercial Agency has the task to prospect the market, to sell and purchase as much as possible. When it was necessary, delegates from the country from external trade undertakings presented for concluding agreements or other such business and we will proceed this way in the future.

Consulting with the chief of the Economic Agency, comrade M. Vremeş and comrade D. Popescu, Secretary I, make the following proposals:

1. To analyze the issues presented by the Israeli party and to communicate to us the position to be taken in the future.

2. Considering that the agreements concluded until now with the Israeli companies (wood products, chemical products and cement for export), in amount of approx. three million dollars, are performed improperly, the M.F.A. should be informed on the difficulties and should stimulate their performance, as main mean for purchasing Israeli merchandise in counterpart.

3. Considering that the Israeli party confirmed that from quality point of view meat purchased as sample corresponds to its standards, please submit to the commercial Agency the quantities available in the future.


178

109

THE TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDIN ARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZ INCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING

CERTAIN ISRAELI POSITIONS TOWARDS THE SITUATION IN THE REGION AND BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 81 418 May 6, 1966, Tel Aviv, 14.25 h Top secret

During the dinner of E. Doron, director of the Eastern European Division, of May 3rd, to

which I participated with comrade Dumitru Popescu, the following special aspects resulted from the discussions:

a) Israeli government presently wishes to obtain better guarantees from the main occidental powers (U.S.A., France and England), in the same time drawing U.S.S.R. in this action, considering the special role it might have in solving the Israeli-Arabian conflict). Requested guarantees would consist in ensuring its safety by the four Great Powers, considering the conclusion of an agreement with the conflict Arabian countries for disarmament and denuclearizing with which the Israeli party expressed its favourable position.

b) In order to reach this desideratum, the Prime Minister L. Eshkol, in his program statement of January current year, as well as the minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban, in his repeated statements, uses a tone that creates a favourable climate for discussions with socialist countries and, first of all, with U.S.S.R.

As first argument to the discussions with these countries, he wishes to explain “the idea of President de Gaulle1)”, expressed one year before, during the French-Egyptian conversations, meaning that “the improvement of the relationships with the Arabian countries must not be done on account of and in the detriment of the relationships with the Israeli government” as ascertained in some communicates of the meetings of Arabian delegates with the representatives of socialist countries (Bulgaria, U.S.S.R.). The Israeli party considers that, to the extent this principle will be understood – essential, in their opinion – a new era of the relationships with socialist countries will begin, which will also mean a more concrete manifestation of its independence, waiving the unilateral policy mainly based on the Occident.

c) An important step of this action shall be the visit in Warsaw, as well as the related conversations – even off the record – between Abba Eban and A. Rapacki. The Israeli party, without diminishing the importance of the reunion of the diplomatic chiefs of the socialist countries, considers very important the possibilities of the minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, to travel in the capital of a socialist country which, according to the M.F.A.’s opinion shall open the path to further travels to Moscow or Bucharest.

d) In order to materialize the relationships with the socialist countries, E. Doron pointed out the favourable attitude of Israel consistently shown by certain governments such as of the P.R. of Poland, S.R. of Romania and lately of the P.R. of Hungary. Moreover, he pointed out the concern towards certain position changes of the Yugoslavian government which has a more intense closeness attitude towards the United Arab Republic and in the same time of 1) Charles-André-Joseph-Marie de Gaulle (1890-1970), French general and politician; during the Second World War he started in London (1940) the resistance movement “Free France” . Founder of the party French Popular Assembly (further on Assembly for the Republic). Chief of Provisory Government (1944-1946). Prime-Minister (June 1st 1958-January 8th 1959) and President of the Republic of France (January 8th 1959- April 28th 1969).

179

alienation towards Israel, as well as towards the attitude of soviet government to reduce the commercial and economic relationships, adopting irrational measures lately as concerns the contamination of Israeli Philharmonic tour and of the soviet Philharmonic tour in U.S.S.R. and Israel, as well as cancelling the participation of certain sportsmen to the 8th edition of Hapoel International Games.

e) As concerns the improvement of relationships with Romania, which was the main reason of the invitation, he repeated the former proposals presented by Golda Meir in 1964, as well as by E. Doron in Bucharest, namely:

Israel’s desire to being kind to our country (even if it is not a state with high possibilities) making available to us a deposit of a certain amount of money in foreign currency. The desire to intervene by means of its possibilities and relationships in easing economic transactions in the U.S.A.

Possibility of contributing to a tourism development with the U.S.A. towards Romania, by leading the groups coming from Israel to our country, at arrival or departure, using in this purpose TAROM and EL-AL (Israel) planes etc.

To the above he was answered briefly meaning that, in its external policy, our country consistently militates in favour of cooperation with all countries, regardless of their political and social regime based on independence, sovereignty, non-interference principles, equality of rights and mutual advantage as well as, as concerns the “deposit”, this is a relationship issue between the two National Banks. Concerning the tourism, he was answered that such proposals must be discussed between specialized bodies (tourism) of the two countries.

The official considers that during the past period there was ascertained a certain change of style and tone in Israeli government’s attitude, meaning that it tends to use important factors in the region and in the world, meaning the emancipation from a unilateral dependency.

Without undervaluing the value of a more temperate style, the tone used until now has not led to substance changes in its external policy.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1 /1966, f. 166-168.

110

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF EDUARD MEZINCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING


No. 05/00412 May 20, 1966, Bucharest Top secret On May 19, 1966, 11:00 hours, comrade deputy of the minister Eduard Mezincescu

received in audience Zvi Ayalon, the minister of Israel in Bucharest, related to his final leave from the S.R. of Romania.

Ion Enache, attaché at D.R.V. assisted. After an interchange of civilities, referring to the close departure of Z. Ayalon from

Romania, comrade E. Mezincescu expressed his belief that the addressee leaves our country having good impressions both as concerns the development of the Romanian-Israeli relationships, and the contacts he had during his activity with the Romanian officials,

180

especially from the M.F.A. He considered that Z. Ayalon, as minister of Israel in Romania, contributed to the normal development of the relationships between the two countries in different fields, even his stay in Bucharest was relatively short – 2 years.

Zvi Ayalon showed that his final departure from Romania is due to the long absence from Israel (he has been in external missions for 7 consecutive years). He added that Israel wishes to expand its relationships with the socialist countries. He mentioned that, in this purpose, during the Warsaw meeting of the chiefs of Israel diplomatic missions in socialist countries, bilateral contacts and discussions were established in order to search new collaboration fields.

Zvi Ayalon stated that his country will take all the measures in order to improve the area in which Israel is situated, underlying that Israel’s relationships with certain countries cannot influence its relationships with other states.

The minister of Israel said that there are possibilities to continuously improve the relationships between Romania and Israel, expressing his hope that new contacts at a high level between the officials of the two countries will be established.

Comrade E. Mezincescu said that our country approves the high level contacts, underlying the importance of choosing the proper moment in this respect. He added that Romania promotes a policy towards the development of relationships with all countries and agrees with taking the measures that may lead to weakening the international tenseness and to preventing the occurrence of new tension centres.

In conclusion, Zvi Ayalon thanked for the consideration granted to his activity and for the hospitality he was treated with during his stay in Romania. Moreover, he pointed out that he is satisfied by the collaboration with comrade deputy of the minister E. Mezincescu in solving different issues.

The audience lasted for 35 minutes.


111

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU M ĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION

No. 17/00216 May 27, 1966, Bucharest Top secret On May 25, 1966 Corneliu Mănescu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the S.R. of

Romania, received in audience Zvi Ayalon, minister of Israel in Bucharest, at his request, related to his close final departure from his position.

S. Celac, III Secretary of M.F.A., was present. The conversation lasted for 20 minutes.

Corneliu Mănescu said that now, at the completion of the minister of Israel’s mission

in Romania, we may consider his positive activity, contributing to the development of the

181

relationships between Romania and Israel. The minister Zvi Ayalon and his wife managed to establish good relationships with the Romanian authorities, which, no doubt, helped him in performing his diplomatic activity, in solving the occurred issues.

During his stay in Romania, Zvi Ayalon had the opportunity to see certain aspects of the life and work of Romanian people, its contribution to the socialist development of the country, due to its sincere desire to live in peace and friendship and to fairly collaborate with all peoples of the world. He could also ascertain that, promoting a friendship and collaboration relationships with all states, complying with the will and interests of the Romanian people, based on the observance of national independence and sovereignty, the Romanian government does not seek to impose in any way the will and opinions, does not interfere with the internal business of other countries and peoples.

Properly applying such principles in its international relationships, Romania also requests that they are observed by all countries, regardless of their size and strength.

The observance of such principles represents the basis on which the relationships between states must be built, the guarantee of people’s peace and security.

Zvi Ayalon said that he regrets leaving Romania after two years stay, because during this time he got to meet and love the working and hospitable Romanian people, the people he has worked with, this beautiful and rich country where he felt “like home”. Mentioning that he cannot claim to have managed to know in detail everything about the residence country, the minister of Israel said that what he felt and found during his stay transfused him a profound and thorough respect towards the Romanian people and its work.

There must be underlined the fact that the fundamental elements of Romanian government’s perception of the great issues of the world today are cherished by the Israeli government. This is a good premise for the future evolution of the relationships of the two countries as well as with other countries of the world.

Zvi Ayalon expressed his appreciation for the support and encouragement he felt during his activity from the Romanian authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and personally from the minister C. Mănescu.

He ensured us that he will remain a good friend of Romania and will speak, as often as possible, about the facts he has seen and learnt during his stay in Bucharest. In this purpose, to strengthen his affirmations, he will present the 40 minutes film he has made by himself and which is the most convincing argument, presenting Romania’s beauties and accomplishments.

At the end of this conversation, Corneliu Mănescu wished the minister Zvi Ayalon a lot of health and success in the new missions he will be entrusted with. AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1966, unpaged.

182

112

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CHIVU STOICA, PRESIDENT OF THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING

THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION

No. 05/00477 June 8, 1966, Bucharest Top secret On June 2nd 1966, 14.00 hours, the President of the State Council, Chivu Stoica,

received in audience Zvi Ayalon, the minister of Israel, related to his final departure from Romania.

After an interchange of protocol civilities, the President of the State Council asked

Z. Ayalon on his impressions of Romania. Z. Ayalon said that the answer to this question requires a profound analysis, however,

he can say that during his stay in Romania he was impressed by the perseverance of the people and the intense activity performed in all fields.

Apparently, Romania’s leaders used to take little steps in developing the country, for which reason the work is accelerated in order to cover this lack.

The President of the State Council said that only after August 23, 1944 Romania has stepped into the road of progress with a real development program. The Romanian people, Romanian nation, in its consolidation process, had a difficult and full of obstacles development.

For centuries, the country was under Turkish [Ottoman] and Austrian-Hungarian domination. After obtaining the state independence, in 1877, and re-winning Transilvania, in 1918, Romania’s leaders were not preoccupied by country’s advancement. Romania, even if independent from territorial-political point of view, was dominated from economic point of view by imperial powers. After August 23, 1944 a great effort had to be made for the multilateral development of the country, its economic independence by industrialization.

Z. Ayalon stated that his sympathy for Romania, Romanian people and its remarkable accomplishments is significant. Israel, which has old traditions, is building now a new life, looking up to countries like Romania, from which experience it has a lot to learn.

The President of the State Council underlined that history and practice proved that people must be left to decide their own faith, without any interference. Each people, each country, depending on the particularities, economic-social development and cultural level are the only ones capable to decide on the adopted system in their evolution towards progress, rejecting the foreign forced ones. Therefore, Romania is profoundly attached to the principles of strict observance of national independence and sovereignty, equality of rights, non-interference with internal affairs and mutual advantage on which its relationships with other countries are grounded.

Z. Ayalon mentioned that Israel has the same attitude towards these cardinal principles of international life. We should add here the principle of solving all litigations amicably, which enables the possibility to create a proper atmosphere for a fruitful collaboration between different states.

The President of the State Council showed that Romania constantly militates for the development of the collaboration between all world states, regardless of their social-political

183

regime, based on the above mentioned principles. Such collaboration is an important factor for the development of human kind.

He underlined that the Romanian-Israeli relationships have evaluated towards both people’s benefit. Of course, there is still room for their future development, especially in the economic field, where the possibilities are even greater and, also, as concerns cultural exchanges, contacts between personalities of different occupations.

Z. Ayalon said that Israeli government wishes to develop its relationships with Romania in all fields, personal contacts being of great use for a better mutual knowledge and understanding.

The President of the State Council showed that both parties must do their best in order to explore and establish the real directions and means for development of bilateral relationships. He asked Z. Ayalon to transmit to the President of Israel wishes of health, peace and prosperity for the Israeli people. Moreover, he wished his addressee the best of luck in the new mission he will receive.

Z. Ayalon thanked kindly to the President of the State Council for the audience before his final departure from Romania, expressing also his gratitude for the benevolence, kindness, collaboration spirit he has felt in his relationships with Romanian officials.

He wished the President of the State Council a lot of health and success in his activity oriented towards Romania’s progress.

The audience lasted for 35 minutes. V. Vîşinschi, III Secretary of M.F.A., translated.


113

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO EDUARD MEZ INCESCU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING

THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI COOPERATION IN TOURISM

No. 81 462 June 18, 1966, Tel Aviv, 15.00 h Top secret. Urgent On June 15, 1966, I visited Moshe Kol1), the minister of Tourism and Development, at

his office, during the visits for presenting members of the government. On this occasion, Moshe Kol briefly presented the development of tourist activities in

Israel, as well as his perspectives, mainly resulting the following significant indexes: In 1965 approximately 300,000 tourists arrived in Israel and in 1966 approximately

350,000 tourists are expected. Among them, 45% come from America, 45% from Europe, the difference from other continents.

Moreover, 45% of the tourists are Jews, 45% Christians and 10% other religions and nationalities. At this moment, the government is focused on the material basis in order to draw a great number of foreign persons, not only for rest and sea baths, but also for treatment and medical cure at the Dead Sea and Tiberias Lake. 1) Moshe Kol (1911-1989), Israeli politician. Member of World Zionist Movement, signatory of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel; member of the provisory State Counsel (1948-1949); first president of the Foreign Affairs Commission (1948-1955) and president of the Education, Culture and Sport Commission of Knesset (1961-1965); minister of Tourism (1965-1977) and of Development (1966-1969).

184

This action would also have social impact, drawing, besides the 15,000 employees of this field, an even higher number of citizens, thinning down the number of unemployed persons.

Within this program, Moshe Kol, as minister, considers that collaboration with Romania might be possible, as it has a great interest in valuing its natural beauties and richness. He would propose, for example, a coordinated activity as concerns the organization of tourist route of citizens brought from America and Europe, so as to include a visit of a number of days in Romania as well, in order to develop Israeli citizens’ interest in visiting Romania. In order to do so, he considers that it would be necessary, for example, to organize visits exchanges between journalists, easing their possibility to visit tourist locations and then performing a press popularization action, combined with other means.

Moreover, there may be discussed the possibility of establishing own air or sea transportation means ensuring the travel of tourists in advantageous conditions. Eventually, in order to agree on such issues contacts between the two governmental institutions may be created.

Moshe Kol mentioned that, even if he does not have the express approval of the government in order to make such proposals, he is sure, knowing the position of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, that such an action will be approved.

As concerns this affirmation, I also briefly presented the successes obtained from tourism development during the past years and our concern for widening this action. Moreover, the country has a specialized body to which was entrusted the solving of such tasks, named N.T.B. [National Tourism Bureau – our ref.]. In order to solve such issues, I suggested that it would be more proper if the representatives of the two institutions would be in direct contact. Moshe Kol added that he will consult with his government colleagues in order to establish the concrete method to contact our bodies, following to submit us his proposal within the shortest term possible.

Comrade D. Popescu participated to the audience.


114


IN TEL AVIV, WITH YOSEF TEKOAH 1), DIRECTOR GENERAL IN ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REGARDING

THE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 1 269 August 7, 1966, Tel Aviv Top secret On July 28 current year I was invited by Y. Tekoah, deputy Director General within

M.F.A., coordinator of the East Europe and the U.N. Departments, as well as of the borderline related issues.

1) Yosef Tekoah (1925-1991), Israeli diplomat. After graduating his studies in the U.S.A. (Harvard University), he entered the M.F.A. as vice legal adviser (1949-1953); Director of Armistice Affairs and head of the Israeli delegations to the Armistice negotiations with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon; deputy representative (1958-1959), later permanent representative to the U.N. (1959-1960). Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Brazil (1960-1962), Moscow (1962-1965). Deputy Director General in M.F.A. (1966-1968), later Permanent Representative to the U.N. (1968-1975).

185

On that occasion, the following issues were raised: 1. Speaking about Abba Eban’s visit to the West European countries and about Israel’s

relations with the European Common Market, he said that those were founded based on the Agreement of June 4, 1964. The results up to then were far from satisfying the future export needs intended to the six Member States; even from the beginning, that Agreement was considered only as a first step to closer relations with the European Economic Community.

In September this year, Israel would present its request as associate to the Common Market, with the hope that the six states would manifest a goodwill attention.

All the issues related to the status of current relations with the Common Market would be carefully analyzed at the Conference of Israeli diplomats accredited with the West European countries to be held at Bern, on August 1, and in which Abba Eban would take part.

Also, Abba Eban would present to the World Jewish Congress, to be held in Brussels, on July 31, a review on the Israel’s international policy, where he would insist on the current Middle East issues, on the relations with Europe’s countries and on the effort for a better understanding with the U.S.S.R. and with the other socialist countries.

During the visits he would make to Paris and London, Abba Eban would exchange opinions on the international situation, in general, and on the Middle East situation, in particular, asking for support for a better understanding of Israel’s position at the debates taking place within the Security Council, regarding the incidents at the Syrian border.

The visits to Denmark and Iceland should be rather courteous and prove the close friendly relations with the Scandinavian countries, despite the distance between them.

It was foreseen that Abba Eban would return to Israel around August 14, current year 2. Regarding the incidents at the Syrian border, I was operationally informed on the

ideas that had been formulated2). 3. At the beginning of August current year, Y. Tekoah would make a visit of several

days to Hungary, Romania and Poland to analyze how the Israeli diplomatic offices in these countries run their activity and, at the same time, in order to meet representatives of the respective M.F.A. for discussions, as a way of direct contact, towards a better mutual understanding.

He would be in our country from August 10-12, current year. On that occasion, he would like to discuss with comrade deputy minister on certain issues regarding the future U.N. session.

When I asked whether the Israeli party had already materialized the issues to be debated, Tekoah replied that as regarded the bilateral relations, there were taken into consideration economic and trade issues, the cooperation in the field of irrigations, tourism, as well as other aspects that the Romanian part would like to raise.

He also referred to the valuable initiatives of our country at the U.N., to the active role and to the proposals that had been made and then unanimously acquired and adopted, while others by the large majority of the states, among which, Israel.

He would like to have an exchange of opinions of the issues foreseen on the agenda of the future U.N. session, to find contact and cooperation points on certain joint actions of the two countries, in approaching some of those. Also, he was interested in whether we had received an answer to the proposal of the Israeli part on raising the level of diplomatic representation to the rank of embassy.

2) See telegram no. 81 490, July 16 1966, 14.50 h, in AMFA, founds Telegrams Tel Aviv, vol. 1, 1966, f. 285-286.

186

As regarded the issues mentioned under point (three), I stated that I had no further answers except the one that had been provided by the head department of M.F.A. to Mr. Ayalon at Bucharest and that I would communicate to Bucharest the other issues which were raised.


115

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO CORNELIU M ĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI REQUEST FOR CONVERSATIONS WIT H HIM

IN NEW YORK

No. 81 533 September 6, 1966, Tel Aviv, 13.45 h Top secret. Urgent On September 13, current year, on the occasion of the presentations to the President of

Israel, on New [Israeli] Year, E. Doron, director of the East Europe Directorate within the M.F.A., asked me to communicate the M.F.A to send the message to comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu, on behalf of Abba Eban, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel and head of the Israeli delegation to the U.N. session, that he wanted to discuss at New York with comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu. Asked on the issue he wanted to discuss, Doron replied that, as far as he knew, Abba Eban wanted to consult with comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu on the issues that the delegation of Israel would debate at the U.N., namely receiving China within the U.N.1), the Vietnam war, the issue of Arabic refugees, and the voting of the new Secretary General of the U.N. should U. Thant refuse to withdraw his resignation.

He wanted to bring into discussion the relations between Israel and Romania and the raise of the diplomatic representation to the rank of embassy.

Doron stated that, in fact, he was not allowed to reveal to me the issues Abba Eban would want to bring into discussion. He was only requested to communicate me that Abba Eban would want to meet comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu at New York. Should they receive an answer to Abba Eban’s wish, we were to know that he would remain in Jerusalem until September 21, current year

Irrespective of the answer, Abba Eban would try, once arrived at New York, to contact comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu to discuss all of the afore-mentioned.

Our opinion was that Abba Eban was interested in the latter issue, namely raising the level of representation to the rank of embassy and that he would insist especially on that matter.

(Ss) [N.] Ionescu


1) Referral to the intense debates which would take place during the XXIst session of the U.N. General Assembly (opened on September 20, 1966) around the issue of re-establishing the legitimate rights of the P.R. of China as sole representative of the Chinese people in the world body, including in the Security Council. Within the respective interval, there had been an increase of the American-Chinese incidents, among which the entering of some American fighter aircraft and ships in the Chinese airspace and territorial waters. The socialist states supported the right of the P.R. of China to be admitted in the U.N., but – for that time being – since it was accused of serious infringement of the human rights – it had to postpone its presence at the world forum.

187

116

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MFA OF ROMANIA, WIT H

MORDECHAI AVGAR, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, ON ACCREDITING THE NEW ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATI VE IN

BUCHAREST AND RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC M ISSIONS

No. 15/7291 October 28, 1966, Bucharest On Thursday, October 27, 1966, comrade Ambassador Dionisie Ionescu, Director of

Protocol, received the Chargé d’affaires of the State of Israel in Bucharest, Mordechai Avgar1), upon his request.

At the meeting assisted Gheorghe Dragoş, III rd Secretary within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The meeting lasted for 20 minutes. Mordechai Avgar, Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the State of Israel at Bucharest, presented a

Verbal Note [No. 410-563]* of the Israeli Legation, accompanied by an Aide-memoire [Annex 1], on the Israeli Government’s hope for the diplomatic missions of S.R. of Romania and of Israel to be raised to the rank of embassies, as well as a curriculum vitae of Mr. Eliezer Doron, currently Director of the East Europe Department within the Israeli M.F.A. (translation of which was annexed)*, requesting the Romanian Government to grant its agreement so that Mr. Eliezer Doron could be appointed by the Israeli government as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Israel in the Socialist Republic of Romania.

At the same time, he was interested, in particular, in whether the Israel Legation could hope for an answer – in a short notice – to the request of agreement for Mr. Eliezer Doron.

Dionisie Ionescu replied to the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of Israel, Mordechai Avgar, that he would send to the head department of the M.F.A. the note received, by means of which it was required to be granted the agreement by the Romanian Government for Mr. Eliezer Doron to be appointed as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Israel in S.R. of Romania, as well as the Aide-mémoire in which the Israeli government expressed its wish that, in a short period of time, it would be mutually agreed on raising the diplomatic missions of the Socialist Republic of Romania and of Israel to the rank of embassies, in the respective countries.

Upon the particular question of the Charge d’affaires a.i. of Israel, Mordechai Avgar, Dionisie Ionescu replied that M.F.A. would operatively send the Government the agreement requests for the ministers plenipotentiary and the answers would be sent to the diplomatic missions in due course.

When he left, the Charge d’affaires a.i. of Israel at Bucharest, Mordechai Avgar, thanked for having been received for discussions, reinstating the idea that both he and his wife had been very interested in and deeply impressed with the entire excursion that had been recently organized by the M.F.A. for the heads of missions, in the regions of Argeş and Oltenia.

1) Mordechai Avgar (n.1918), Israeli diplomat. Adviser (1964-1966) and then Chargé d’affaires a.i. at Bucharest (1966-1967); later on Adviser-Minister at Bucharest (since April 23, 1974). * Shall not be published – our ref.

188

Annex 1 No. 410-564 October 27, 1966, Bucharest The Israeli Legation referred to its Note no. 410-563 dated that day to the M.F.A. of

S.R. of Romania by means of which the request of the government of Israel was submitted so that the Romanian government would grant its agreement for Mr. Eliezer Doron as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Israel in S.R. of Romania.

The legation had the honour to inform the Ministry that the Israeli government hoped that the matter of raising the diplomatic mission of S.R. of Romania in Israel and of the diplomatic mission of Israel in Romania to the rank of embassy would be positively solved in short notice.

The respective matter had been discussed over a conversation that took place at New York on September 30, 1966, between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of S. R. of Romania, his Excellency Mr. Corneliu Mănescu, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel, his Excellency Mr. Abba Eban.

The personal rank of Mr. E. Doron was that of ambassador. Nevertheless, the government of Israel was satisfied with the fact that the decision of receiving him, if granted the agreement, as Minister or Ambassador remained to be taken solely by the government of S.R. of Romania.


117


ISRAELI PERCEPTIONS ON THE EGYPTIAN-SYRIAN MILITARY AGREEMENT

No. 81 561 November 11, 1966, Tel Aviv, 13.45 h. Top secret. The military agreement that had been recently concluded between Egypt and Syria1) was

commented upon at the level of diplomatic, political and journalistic groups in Israel, as followed:

The discussions between Nasser and Zaien2), as well as a military cooperation between those two states might have the role of tempering the Syrian government from launching potential military actions against Israel, and the fact that Nasser was in favour of the actions of freeing Palestine in 4 or 5 years was considered as an important element of maintaining tranquillity over the coming period in that Middle East area. Underlining, yet, the positive consequences of the respective agreement for Israel, the political and journalistic groups were still somewhat reluctant and pessimistic, both as regarded the fact that there were certain dissensions among the Syrian military groups, and as regard the lack of full stability of the current government, which might trigger certain surprises.

Commenting on the fact that the provisions of the military agreement would be put into practice should Syria be attacked, there was a state of concern related to the situation in which the terrorists’ actions would continue at the border with Israel, in which case there would be

1) It is about the military agreement concluded between Egypt and Syria on November 4, 1966. 2) Yusuf Zuaiyin (Youssef Zaien, 1931-1993). Syrian politician. Prime-Minister (1965, 1966-1972).

189

the danger of a military conflict, since Israel was willing to defend its security and independence by its own means.

Also, the state of concern was related to the fact that the Syrian-Egyptian military agreement would not last too long, as a result of the general instability in the Arab countries, as well as of the fact that it was directed not only against Israel, but also against the states with a pro-western orientation from the Middle East.

It was estimated that the decision made by the Israeli government to extend the military service from 20 months to 30 months, with the purpose of defending its territory and rejecting any aggressive actions, was in line with the measures to counterattack the provisions in the Syrian-Egyptian military agreement.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


118


IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE SUPPORT BY ISRAEL OF

CORNELIU M ĂNESCU’S CANDIDACY FOR PRESIDING THE TWENTY SECOND SESSION OF THE U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY

No. 1 331 December 16, 1966, Tel Aviv Top secret. According to the instructions received on operational line, on November 16, current

year, I visited the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, in order to hand him the Verbal Note requesting the support by the Israeli government of the candidacy of comrade Corneliu Mănescu as President of the XXIInd Session of the U.N. General Assembly. From the M.F.A. also took part in the meeting: Eliezer Doron, the new Israeli Minister in Bucharest and Arieh Elian, the new head of the East Europe Department, who had been appointed as replacement for Eliezer Doron.

After an exchange of pleasantries, I communicated our government’s wish that the Israeli government support the candidacy of comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu to preside the twenty second Session of the U.N. General Assembly. On that occasion, I was informed that it had been for the first time in the history of the U.N. when a personality from a socialist country would be granted that position. Thus, there would be observed certain U.N. basic principles and provisions on the representation of the Member States within the U.N. bodies and on the alternation of geographic regions. I also showed that the respective proposal had met the unanimous adhesion of the U.N. Member States from the Eastern Europe, as well as of other governments. Underlining the constructive contribution of our country to the promotion of the U.N. principles and goals, of the resolutions adopted by the U.N. and its specialized institutions upon the initiative of our country, I evidenced those referring to the education of the youth in the spirit of peace ideals, of mutual respect and understanding between the peoples, as well as the European cooperation, which got the adhesion of the U.N. Member States. I mentioned the contribution brought by our country to the promotion of an economic cooperation between states founded on healthy bases, our initiatives regarding the principles of economic cooperation, development and use of human resources, applying

190

science and technique in the view of progressing, the need of industrial development, international tourism development and encouragement. As a conclusion, I underlined the principles at the basis of the foreign policy of our country in the view of developing relations between all the states, irrespective of their social-political systems.

In his presentation, Abba Eban underlined the following: 1. In order to provide an official answer to the request of our government, he would

have to consult with the Prime Minister and with other government peers. As far as he was concerned, he thought that the answer would be a positive one, which would not be delayed, while we were to be communicated in a short period of time. He estimated that the candidacy of our Minister of Foreign Affairs to the presidency of the twenty second General Assembly of the U.N. was in accordance with the U.N. interests and with the provisions of the said organization. He was convinced that the election of comrade Corneliu Mănescu for that position would contribute to the promotion of certain cooperation relations between the states, to defend peace, due to the worldwide prestige of our country, and due to the personality of comrade Corneliu Mănescu. He appreciated comrade Corneliu Mănescu as an outstanding political-diplomatic personality at international level, who had gained prestige and respect among his U.N. colleagues, being able to fulfil the office he ran for. As far as Abba Eban was concerned, he would support him in performing his attributions he would be elected for, as President of the Session. He underlined that during the meeting at the U.N. with comrade Corneliu Mănescu he had an exchange of viewpoints regarding Europe, Asia and Africa, as well as other issues related to the current international situation. On that occasion, he found that, despite the different historical-geographical conditions of the two countries, the viewpoints of both parties on most of the debated issues were quite alike, while others coincided (independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity).

During his discourse at the U.N., Abba Eban underlined that the “Iron Curtain” ideology was no longer actual and that it had to be replaced with a policy based on principled relations which would lead to the promotion of a multilateral cooperation between the states. He would continue to act in the future on that direction and, as far as the candidacy of comrade Corneliu Mănescu was concerned, he would discuss with other U.N. peers, in order to share his good impressions on the personality of our Minister of Foreign Affairs [highlighted in text – our ref.].

2. Referring to the situation in the area, Abba Eban mentioned the fact that the Israeli government highly appreciated the principled attitude and consistency adopted by the Romanian delegation at the U.N. on the appointment of a custodian regarding the goods of the Palestinian refugees. Like the previous year, Romania abstained from voting when it was again brought into discussion the issue of adopting such a resolution which prejudiced the independence and sovereignty of the State of Israel.

3. As regards the situation in the Middle East, he said that over the past three months the situation in the area had reached a particular tension, becoming extremely stringent. Currently, both parties of the conflict showed a tendency to peace and tranquillity. For the future, Israel would make all the efforts needed to decrease the tension, in order to maintain a calm and quiet state of affairs.

Referring to the bilateral diplomatic, political and economic relations, he appreciated them as being good and normal, outlining the right position and the goodwill gestures adopted by the Romanian party. Israel would make efforts to develop them, since there were such conditions and possibilities in the near future. He noticed as a known fact in that direction the measure that had been taken by appointing Eliezer Doron as Minister at Bucharest, who was one of the most valuable Israeli diplomats, familiarized with the problems in the Eastern Europe.

191

Relating to the issues that had been raised, after I thanked for the positive appreciations regarding our foreign policy, the personality of comrade Corneliu Mănescu and the support of his candidacy to the twenty second Session of the General Assembly of the U.N., I stated that, as far as the issue of the Palestinian refugees was concerned, our country adhered to the decisions adopted by the U.N. on finding a solution to the respective issue and that, up to that moment, no changes had occurred in our position.

Abstaining from voting with regard to the custodian was fully in line with the principle position internationally expressed, regarding such issues.

As it was known, our country was developing cooperation relations with all the states, irrespective of their social-political order, based on the principles clearly expressed by our heads of parties and of state.

Under the current international conditions, the military border conflicts, even if at the beginning had a more limited nature, affected the interests and preoccupation of all the peace-loving states.

In order to solve the misunderstandings between the states, the international life had proved that there was no need to use the armed forces to solve them, and our country was against such methods. We consistently supported the finding of the appropriate means to ensure the maintaining and consolidation of peace.

The discussion was held in English, lasted for 35 minutes and it was translated by

comrade Purcaru Augustin, IIIrd Secretary.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1966, unpaged. See Ibidem, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 2/1966, f. 36-37 (telegram of the Romanian Minister, no. 81 566, November 17, 1966, 14.05 h).

119

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU, DIRECT OR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,

WITH MORDECHAI AVGAR, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ARRIVAL OF THE NEW HEAD OF THE MISSION

No. 15/8514 December 17, 1966, Bucharest Top secret On Friday, December 16, 1966, 11:30 h, comrade Ambassador Dionisie Ionescu,

Director of Protocol within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, received the Chargé D’affaires of the state of Israel in Bucharest, Mordechai Avgar, upon the latter’s request.

Mircea Corbeanu, head of Office of Studies and Documentation within the Protocol Department assisted the meeting.

The meeting lasted for 45 minutes. Mordechai Avgar showed that the new Envoy Extraordinary and Minister

Plenipotentiary of Israel in Bucharest, Eliezer Doron, were to arrive at Băneasa airport on Wednesday, December 28, 1966, 17:05 h, from Zurich, by TAROM 210 flight. Regarding the said arrival, he requested certain details on the regular protocol procedure for such occasions, as well as certain clarifications on the visits that the new minister would make before the presentation of the letters of credence.

192

Comrade Dionisie Ionescu took note of the communication regarding the date Mr. Eliezer Doron was to arrive and gave all the instructions concerning the protocol procedure related to the arrival at his position of the new head of the mission and on the presentation of letters of credence.

Mordechai Avgar thanked for the instructions received and wanted to further mention that the new minister would arrive together with his wife, without his two daughters, out of which, the eldest one (19 years old) was serving the military service.

Besides that aspect, the Chargé d’affaires ad interim of Israel in Bucharest communicated that, regarding the tour in our country of the Maccabi Tel Aviv, female basket team, he would offer on Monday evening, December 19, current year, a cocktail dinner where he would have liked to invite the Romanian “Politehnica” basket team and several U.C.F.S. top personalities.


120

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINIST RY OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE COLLABORA TION AND THE CULTURAL EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES

No. 85 017 January 19, 1967, Tel Aviv, 15.00 h Top secret. Urgent On the occasion of the protocol visit I made on January 17, 1967, Dr. Zalman Aranne1),

Minister of Education and Culture, approached mainly the following topics: He renewed on behalf of the government the invitation that had been sent 2 years before,

during the Teheran conference, to comrade academician Ştefan Bălan2), Minister of Education, to make a several-days visit to Israel.

The discussion that took place at Teheran with comrade Şt. Bălan he appreciated it as valuable and important, outlining, at the same time, the rich experience that our country had gained in terms of preparing staff and training the youth and wished to apply it in Israel too, in the field he would be in charge of.

It was well-known throughout the country, said Dr. Z. Aranne, that most of the pupils, students and other staff categories (medical doctors, engineers, economists etc.) that came from Romania were extremely well prepared, making a clear and obvious difference with their wide knowledge horizon and their thorough specialized training from the other olim coming from other European countries.

As regards the tension from the Syrian border, he qualified it as severe, while Israel had reached the end of its patience.

1) Zalman Aranne (1899-1969), Israeli politician. Member (1930), Secretary and then Secretary General (1948-1951) of Histadrut; member of Knesset(1949-1964), of the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Security (1949-1950), of the Israeli Delegation at the U.N. (1950-1954), Minister Secretary of State (1954-1955), Minister of Education and Culture (1955-1969). 2) Ştefan Bălan (1913-1991), Romanian engineer, professor and scientist. Diplomat of the Bucharest Polytechnic School, member of the teaching staff there (1944-1948), then at the Constructions Institute (1948-1979). Minister of Equipment Construction (1956-1958) and of Education (1963, 1965-1969), Vice-President of the National Council of Engineers and Technicians, of the International Office of Education from Geneva, member of the International Academy of Science History in Paris etc.

193

As a personal opinion, he mentioned that the current state of tension was also due to the competition of the Great Powers, to the race of arming up encouraged and supported by those Powers in the Middle East, which, besides the serious danger it imposed on maintaining peace, it also brought economic and social prejudices to small countries which were being pushed on that direction.

We always showed that science and culture had an important role in the cooperation and understanding between the peoples, to the interest of mankind progress. Our country had a favourable attitude towards the promotion of contacts and international exchanges and I would send comrade Minister Şt. Bălan the invitation to visit Israel.

Having noticed the tensed situation at the border, I added that the use of force in solving the conflicts between the states was a method rejected by all the peace-loving states; in order to maintain and consolidate it, it was necessary to patiently find the most appropriate peaceful means and methods.


121


THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI CULTURAL EXCHANGES

No. 85 023 January, 26 1967, Tel Aviv, 14.30 h Top secret. Urgent At the concert offered by Ion Voicu on the evening of January 23, 1967, at Jerusalem,

the head of the Cultural Department within the [Israeli] M.F.A, M. Shneerson, having noticed the increase in number and value of the artistic bands and of the Romanian performers that performed shows in Israel, suggested that it would be a good idea to regulate mutual cultural-artistic exchanges between the two parties, based on certain arrangements.

Such a measure would boost even further the development and diversification of those relations, and he mentioned that he had already prepared a painting exhibition which he would have liked to be presented in Romania, as well, and that he was ready to receive, at the same time, a Romanian exhibition in Israel.

Also, at any time there could be presented in our country concerts with valuable Israeli classical music performers (pianists, violinists etc.), should such a thing were possible.

I outlined that the Romanian bands and performers performed shows based on certain arrangements between O.S.T.A.*) and various Israeli artistic managers.

Such a modality never raised any difficulties up to that moment and we appreciated that it could be used for the future, as well, and the Israeli artistic managers could discuss and arrange possible concerts of some performers in our country.

When asked whether the regulation of cultural exchanges could be considered as officially raised, M. Shneerson said that currently there were being prepared at the M.F.A. the materials and proposals for such a discussion, which would take place after the Israeli Minister at Bucharest, Eliezer Doron, had sent his proposals, too.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


*) O.S.T.A. = The State Office for Artistic Tours – our ref.

194

122


THE ISRAELI REACTIONS TO ESTABLISHING DIPLOMATIC RE LATIONS BETWEEN ROMANIA AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC GERMANY 1)

No. 85 033 February 5, 1967, Tel Aviv, 14.15 h Top secret The visit of comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu at Bonn2) and the establishment of

diplomatic relations between our country and F.R. of Germany were vividly commented upon by the Israeli diplomatic, political and journalistic groups, by the Israeli radio and mass-media of all kind.

Particularly outstanding were the publications “Our life”, “ Maariv” and “Davar”, which, except for some news broadcasted by the foreign press agencies, made vast comments on that event.

Thus, under the title The Violent Soviet Attack toward the Bonn Government it was shown that “the attacks were related to the visit to Bonn made by Mr. Corneliu Mănescu”, that “the Soviet attack represented an attempt to cause the failure of the efforts made by the Bonn government to establish diplomatic relations with the East European countries”. Having cited well informed sources from Moscow, the article showed that “The F.R. Germany particularly insisted with the Soviet Government on requesting to prevent the establishment of diplomatic relations between Bonn and the East European governments”.

The comments made in “Our life” newspaper, on January 31, current year, revealed that the visit to Bonn of comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu was the first of a Minister of Foreign Affairs from an East European country to F.R. Germany, after the Second World War. Having cited sources from Bonn, it was shown that the political groups from F.R. Germany were convinced that after the establishment of the diplomatic relations with Bucharest, also the relations between F.R. Germany and Bulgaria and Hungary would improve.

The article and comment made in the same newspaper on February 3, current year, presented, among others, that the Conference of Foreign Ministers from the countries signatory of the Warsaw Treaty, gathered on February 7 in the East Berlin, was a consequence of the communication on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Romania and the F.R. Germany.

Also, under the title At the Death of Hallstein Doctrine3) it was presented that “the establishment of normal diplomatic relations between Romania and the F.R. Germany is a historical political event”, Moscow’s attitude regarding that change in which the pioneer and road opener was Romania, was not a very good willing one. Not accidentally Moscow published exactly the same week a warning on the increase of the Nazi danger in Germany. It was, also, presented that the German Democratic Republic should have been happy and not shocked by that act, but the G.D.R. had hoped to have an important role as the most

1) On January 31, 1967, the booth countries have established diplomatic relations at embassy level. See Romania-Federal Republic Germany. The Beginnings of Diplomatic Relations 1966-1967, coord. D. Preda, Bucharest, 2009. 2) The visit of the Romanian Foreign Minister in the F.R.G. took place between January 30- February 3, 1967. 3) Reference to the Hallstein Doctrine (after the name of Walter Hallstein (1901-1982), Secretary of State within M.F.A. of F.R.G., later on President of the Common Market), promoted by the Bonn until 1967 and according to which the recognition of the G.D.R. by a country would automatically trigger a break of its diplomatic relations with the F.R.G. Yugoslavia and Cuba experienced the solidity of that principle.

195

developed industrial force in the communist countries (after the U.S.S.R.), but that hope died once with the cancellation of the “Hallstein Doctrine”.

The “Jerusalem Post” from February 1, current year, stated, among others, that the agreement to establish diplomatic relations between Romania and the F.R. Germany was the first fracture in the “Hallstein Doctrine”.

The ambassadors of Austria, France, Switzerland and those from Latin America showed their interest in getting familiarized with the agenda of the visit of comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu to Bonn, with the perspective of developing relations between Romania and the F.R. Germany, manifesting their satisfaction with regard to the establishment of such relations, making positive remarks on our foreign policy which demonstrated realism, consistency and courage.

The ambassador of the F.R. Germany expressed his satisfaction and stated that the extraordinary reception of our delegation to Bonn proved the interest and satisfaction of his government and, at the same time, the desire regarding a multilateral extension of the relations between the two countries.

The heads of missions of the socialist countries manifested no interest in the respective event.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


123 TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT IN REGARD TO

ROMANIA’S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF DEVELOPM ENT OF RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES IN THE AREA

No. 85 048 February 21, 1967, Tel Aviv, 13.45 h Top secret. Urgent During the discussion held on February 20, current year with Yisrael Galili [1911-1986],

Minister of Information [1967-1969], the latter said that in the report on the works of the latest U.N. session which had been presented by Abba Eban, Minister of Foreign Affairs, it was noticed the initiative, the active role and the effort undertaken by the delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania during the session, in order for the relations between states with various social systems to be based on the principles of independence, equality and the right of each people to decide its own fate, without any external interference, whatsoever.

Many times, up to then, the principledness, realism and consistency of our country’s foreign policy had been underlined during the meetings of the Israeli government.

Also, the Israeli government appreciated particularly the fact that Romania, given its good relations with the Arab countries, maintained the normal relations and was in favour of developing those relations with Israel, which determined and would determine for the future a positive influence for the entire Middle East.

196

Referring to the political situation in the area, Y. Galili said that according to the information he had, except for Syria1) all the other Arab countries were currently against the initiation of military operations against Israel.

It would have been possible for Syria to be influenced, in finalizing its attitude, by the Arab countries and by the Great Powers and to adopt a similar position toward Israel.

In such a situation, the works of the mixed Armistice Commission could be resumed; the infiltrations of terrorist elements could get lower in intensity and, from that moment on, the state of tranquillity and relatively calm could be maintained at the borders.

He manifested concern in regard to the current tensed situation at the border, when the works of the mixed Commission had been postponed for an undetermined period, the losses and the human victims continued to occur on the Israeli territory2) and the dissensions within the Syrian government and its instability grew deeper and deeper.

(Ss) V. Georgescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Israel, vol. 1/1967, f. 60-61.

124

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ILIE VERDE Ţ,

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI NEGOTI ATIONS

A PROPOS THE BILATERAL ECONOMIC COOPERATION

No. 85 080 March 21, 1967, Tel Aviv, 14.10 h. Top secret. Urgent The discussions began at Jerusalem on March 20, current year The Israeli delegation, led by the Minister of Finance, Sapir1), consisted of

representatives of the Ministries of Industry and Foreign Trade, Finance, Agriculture Development, Tourism, Banks.

In his word, Sapir, Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government, express thanks for the presence of the Romanian delegation in Israel and for its high level, and then he presented some of the current preoccupations of the government, which aimed at developing exports, especially exports of finished products etc. Then, he said that the exchanges between our

1) Between November 30-December 7, 1966, based on the divergences between Syria and Jordan on the battle strategy against Israel, there occurred incidents at the common border. At the same time, between those two parties there were divergences also in what regarded the role of the P.L.O. (Palestine Liberation Organization) in the battle against Israel. On December 1966, at Damascus, based on the conversations between the Syrian leaders and the President of P.L.O Executive Committee, Ahmed (Ahmad) Shukairi, an agreement was reached regarding the principles of the “common fight” against Israel. 2) Between January 1-11, 1967 there were strong incidents at the Israeli-Syrian border, the parties placing in each other’s responsibility the outburst of those incidents. Following the appeal launched by the U.N. Secretary General, U, Thant, Israel and Syria accepted to meet within a mixed Armistice Commission. After three meetings (January 25, 29 and February 2), the works were suspended, as no agreement could be reached. Shortly after that, new incidents occurred between April 7-12, 1967, when armored forces, artillery and aviation were launched into battle. 1) Pinhas Sapir (b.1909-1975), Israeli politician. General Manager within the Ministry of Defence and Treasury (1948-1955); Minister of Trade and Industry (1955–1963), Minister of Finance, Trade and Industry (1963–1965), Minister of Finance and Foreign Trade (1965–1969). Secretary General of the Labour Party (1968-1969).

197

countries had not reached an appropriate level as compared to the existing possibilities and that they were taking into consideration an increase of those exchanges, which would reach, for the coming 2-3 years, a level of approx. 20 million dollars for each party.

Then, Minister Sapir underlined that the Israeli government was preoccupied with a series of issues related to the economic-industrial cooperation with our country, such as building certain industrial objectives, paid in products that were to be produced or in products of other kind. He also referred to the possibility of a technical-scientific collaboration, as well as to the collaboration in trade on third markets. He launched also the idea of concluding a long-term agreement, which would constitute the basis for bilateral exchanges over several years.

After we presented shortly some of the main achievements on our economic development, the principles we saw as the basis of the economic-industrial cooperation, we mentioned our desire that the discussions would lead to a more concrete establishment of certain objectives, of interest to both parties. We underlined that idea because we could see that the Israeli party wanted to channel the discussions around certain statements of intentions which were to finalize, according to what he had said, in a general cooperation framework agreement between the two states.

During the afternoon meeting, after an exchange of opinions on the fields of interest in the view of an economic-industrial and technical-scientific cooperation, it was decided upon the establishment of two workgroups which were to analyze the concrete fields of cooperation, as well as the development of trade relations.

Upon the proposition of the Israeli party, some visits would be organized to certain objectives of industrial and technical-scientific interest.

The propositions made by the Israeli party foresaw a longer visit schedule (four days), which we proposed to concentrate, in such a way as to be able to focus on a more concrete debate on the issues, so that, in principle, the discussions could be finalized until the end of the week.


125

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE DRAFT OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC AGREEMEN T

No. 85094 April 4, 1967, Tel Aviv, 13.50 h. Top secret. Urgent After the departure of the Ministry of Foreign Trade delegation, the Israeli journalists

and mass-media commented on the visit, as follows: It was seen that the change that had occurred regarding the economic relations between

Romania and Israel was not at all by chance; on the one hand it reflected the subjective desire of the Israeli economic leaders to develop trade relations with the socialist countries of Europe, as a consequence of the difficulties encountered in regard to the integration of the European market, and, on the other hand, Romania’s aspiration to develop its international economic relations with all the states, irrespective of their social-political system, fact which was proved by the principles of coexistence and non-discrimination.

198

It was outlined that it was the first delegation from the socialist countries, at such a high level, which, besides the proposals made, also had the role to teach the Israeli party how to practically operate a bilateral cooperation and one on third markets.

Besides the full satisfaction with the results of the meetings between the two parties, the Romanian delegation was attributed the role of “pioneer” in the sense of improving the relations, both the political and the economic ones, between all the other socialist countries and Israel.

The agreement which would be concluded in Romania was not given only an economic importance, but also a political one, in the meaning that the discussions had been carried out in Israel openly between high level delegations, and Romania proved an independent attitude toward Israel and different from the other socialist states.


126

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU M ĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH PINHAS SAPIR,

FINANCE MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS

No. 17/00197 April 13, 1967, Bucharest Top secret. On April 11, 1967, 11:00 h, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Corneliu Mănescu, received

the visit of the Finance Minister of the State of Israel, Pinhas Sapir, who led an economic delegation in our country.

The Israeli Minister was accompanied by A. Chelouche, Head of the Economic Department within the Israeli M.F.A., and E. Doron, Minister Plenipotentiary of the State of Israel, in Bucharest.

There were present Ştefan Cleja, Head of the Vth Relations Department, and O. Bărbulescu, Head a.i. of the Economic Relations Department.

The translation was done by V. Vîşinschi, Third Secretary. After an exchange of pleasantries, P. Sapir showed that the Israeli government and

people were extremely interested in the evolutions of the economic relations between Israel and Romania.

The visit of the Romanian economic delegation to Israel gave him the opportunity to know and then to have an in-depth perception on the characteristics of the Romanian national economy, the economic objectives foreseen to be achieved.

Referring to the similarity of efforts undertaken by both countries at economic level, P. Sapir underlined that the agreements he hoped that could be concluded on the occasion of his visit to Romania would constitute a solid basis for the further development of the bilateral collaboration and would mark the entering into a new stage. He outlined the fact that, during the discussions up to then, it resulted that both parties had the interest to overcome the current framework of the existing trade agreement. On the same occasion, it was found that Romania had some difficulties in placing its products on the U.S.A. or Latin American market, and Israel wanted to trade with P.R. of China, being able to offer chemical fertilizers against certain amounts of soy. Thus, appeared the possibility for the two countries to help each other in the field of trade operations on third markets.

199

He sent to his interlocutor greetings from the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Eban.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs welcomed the Israeli Minister and his collaborators to our country and expressed his belief that the visit of the Israeli delegation would contribute to the development of the economic relations between the two countries.

He showed that, after the Minister Plenipotentiary E. Doron had been accredited to Bucharest, the Israeli party manifested a more intense interest in developing relations with Romania, especially in the economic and technical-scientific fields.

Upon the Romanian party’s request to materialize that wish, E. Doron presented a list with all the possibilities for a bilateral collaboration, foreseen by the Israeli party. Right after that, the Romanian government sent to Israel a delegation led by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade, V. Răuţă, who had discussions with the competent Israeli fora.

The conversations with E. Doron, the negotiations carried out by the Romanian delegation in Israel and now by the Israeli delegation in Romania had identified up to the moment a group of fields and shapes under which the economic bilateral collaboration could be possible and desired by both parties. Currently, it would be scheduled to materialize the aspects resulted from the negotiations, to take actions for the achievement of the respective objectives and to assess what else can be done as a plus.

As regards the cooperation in the field of production, one of the problems was to find an appropriate investments financing system, including for situations when certain installations should be acquired from other markets. A positive solution to that matter would considerably extend the possibilities for an economic collaboration.

He thanked for the careful reception of the Romanian delegation in Israel and gave assurances, insofar as it was concerned, that the Romanian party would ensure the same conditions for the Israeli delegation, fact which constituted the premises for a fruitful development of negotiations.

Making an intervention, P. Sapir underlined that in Israel the discussions were based on the principles stated by the Romanian party, namely the assessment of the possibilities to build economic objectives against payment in goods resulted from the exploitation of those objectives or in other similar products. Thus, it would be the case of some food industry (meat treatment, canned fruit and vegetables, and powder milk) and chemical industry enterprises. The loan that the Israeli party intended to grant for the achievement of those objectives would amount to 10-15 million dollars.

To the extent to which there would be need for equipment from other countries, the Israeli party could grant loans for such cases, too.

Israel was interested in buying, even under long-term agreements, certain Romanian products, which – together with similar actions from the Romanian part - would make it possible to increase the volume of bilateral trade exchanges up to 20-25 million dollars, both ways, and to strengthen the collaboration of third markets [highlighted in text – our ref.].

The Israeli party paid a great importance to the economic collaboration with Romania and made all the necessary efforts to reach to the best results.

Having gone on with his presentations, the Minister of Foreign Affairs showed that, although up to that moment the Romanian-Israeli relations had been normal, with no controversial matters between the two countries, currently it could be said that, overall, those bilateral relations entered, as P. Sapir also outlined, a new stage. The respective stage contained numerous possibilities which, yet, should be materialized and fully exploited.

The development of Romanian-Israeli relations could therefore go further, both in regard to raising the mutual diplomatic representation, and, especially, economically, in the field of human relations.

200

In the economic field, the possibilities to extend relations aimed mainly at the elements which had been mentioned by P. Sapir: Cooperation in building certain industrial objectives against payment in the products resulted from those objectives or in similar products; the establishment of an appropriate system to finance the respective investments, including those requiring equipment from other countries; the development of trade exchanges and cooperation in that field on third markets. Obviously, the two parties had to find the most appropriate means and forms to allow the practical achievement of the collaboration and its development, so that it could contain other future objectives, too.

He assured his interlocutor that Romania was a partner that wanted to collaborate with Israel based on mutual respect and benefit, to the interest of both countries.

He underlined that what was mentioned reflected the decision made at the highest Romanian fora. Besides, E. Doron was received by the Secretary General of the Central Committee of R.C.P. [Nicolae Ceauşescu], fact which could not remain unnoticed by the two parties, as well as by others [highlighted in text – our ref.].

P. Sapir thanked for the open presentation made by the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and declared himself to be completely in agreement with the ideas expressed.

Having outlined that mutual respect and benefit were at the basis of the Romanian-Israeli collaboration, to which the social-political systems represented no impediment, he said that he completely shared the ideas regarding the multiple possibilities for an economic cooperation, including the Israeli participation in funding certain investment goods acquired from other countries, which he totally agreed on, and restated the necessity to put into practice the possibilities offered by the new stage reached by the bilateral relations.

He mentioned that his delegation also included two experts, representatives of the National Council of Scientific Research and of the Ministry of Agriculture, since it had been noticed there was some interest in those fields, too.

He also intended to invite to Israel two Romanian delegations – one of agriculture experts and another one of experts in scientific research – to make an exchange of experience and to study the real collaboration possibilities in those fields.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs wished P. Sapir and the entire Israeli delegation great success in their activities, expressing his belief that the discussions would be fruitful. He asked his interlocutor to send the best regards to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Eban.

In conclusion, P. Sapir and those who accompanied him warmly thanked for the kind reception.

The meeting lasted for 50 minutes.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20 E/1967, f. 85-89.

201

127


REGARDING THE VISIT OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO BU CHAREST

No. 85 109 April 16, 1967, Tel Aviv, 13.00 h Top secret. Post-haste. The Israeli mass-media and the political groups commented upon the visit of the Israeli

delegation, led by P. Sapir, to S.R. of Romania, as follows: Within the MAPAI and Ahdut Haavoda political groups (“Our life”, “ Information”,

“Jerusalem Post”, “ Lamerhav Information” newspapers) it was outlined that “it is for the first time that officially an Israeli Minister has left, invited by a government from the Eastern Europe, to lead economic negotiations”. It was mentioned that “the economic agreement that is being negotiated between Romania and Israel had a particular importance, proving the extension of Romania’s economic and diplomatic activity in the Middle East”. “Romania proved that a country can have good relations with Israel, without having to become subject of various Arab blackmails. A determined attitude can lead to better results”.

The political groups of the MAPAM Party (“Al Hamishmar”, “ Mishmar” newspapers) outlined that the official invitation by the Romanian government of an Israeli delegation at Minister level as well as the discussions between the two parties “go beyond the line of regular trade negotiations”, “ this must be seen as a chance to strengthen the relations with Romania in the interest of both countries”, “ there are signs for a common collaboration also in the fields of cultural, scientific, sports etc. relations”.

Also, the “Mishmar” newspaper stated that “what determined Romania to take this step was the alignment of this country’s overall policy, both theoretically and practically to the principles of peaceful coexistence”.

Histadrut (“Davar”, “ Omer”) stated that: “Romania understood very well that the mutual benefit that the two states will share as a consequence of the new agreement not only was legitimate, but one that integrated in the direction of the international efforts for the development of collaboration relations between the states, to consolidate peace into the world”.

The independent groups (“Maariv”, “ Hayom”, “ Hatzofe”, “ Haaretz”) made positive comments on the Romanian economic development, exemplifying with numbers and comparisons and bringing arguments that the impetuous development of our industry and agriculture required for an increase of exports in order to level the trade balance.

The mass-media of those groups outlined that: “among the East European states, Romania is the first state that took the initiative to develop relations with Israel, which proved independence in many fields”. Having thanked the Romanian government, the attitude of which “deserves to be praised in regard to the policy of reuniting families, to transfer the Torah scrolls and to sign the economic agreement”, it was shown that “the agreement which is to be signed does not lack the significance of Israel’s appreciation, as well as the appreciation of other socialist countries”.

The Israeli Communist Party – Mikunis group – estimated that it had been for the first time that an Israeli Minister made a visit to a socialist state, upon an official invitation, and outlined the fact that the discussions would conclude with an economic agreement and a technical-scientific collaboration, while the Wilner [Vilner] group, without any comments, announced the departure of the Israeli delegation to sign the agreement.

202

Kol-Israel radio station broadcasted information and outlined the fact that it was the first Israeli delegation to leave for an Eastern European country and that “hopefully such relations will be established, as well, with other states from this region of the socialist bloc”.

The office noted that the Israeli political, governmental and mass-media groups, in parallel with the daily monitoring and information on the works of the delegation, as well as on the meetings of P. Sapir held with the members of our government and head of state, also outlined the idea that the development of economic relations between the two countries justified the great hopes in what regarded an increase of the diplomatic and cultural relations between our country and Israel, whereas the attitude of our country could constitute an example toward a new orientation in the relations with Israel of other European socialist countries.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


128


IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE PROGRESS AND

THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 1 449 May 13, 1967, Jerusalem Top secret. On April 19, 1967, I was invited together with my wife by Abba Eban, the Minister of

Foreign Affairs, to have lunch at his residence in Jerusalem. There were also present, with their wives, P. Sapir, the Minister of Finance, head of the

Israeli economic delegation to Bucharest, Yisrael Galili, Minister of Information, Yosef Tekoah, deputy General Manager within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aviezer Chelouche, head of the Economic Department within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the manager of “Maariv” newspaper and the editor-in-chief of the “Davar” newspaper.

When I arrived at Abba Eban’s residence (13.30 h), everyone else was present, but for P. Sapir who arrived a few minutes later.

From the first moment, smiling and with complete satisfaction, Abba Eban told me that, two days before, Minister Sapir presented an information note before the Israeli government in which he detailed his impressions after the visit he had made to Bucharest, how the negotiations went, the contents of the agreements concluded and the discussions he had at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with comrade Minister C. Mănescu, as well as those held at the presidency, with comrade President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gh. Maurer. P. Sapir was simply touched, as Abba Eban said, by the attention given to the delegation at Bucharest, by the warm welcoming and the discussions had with the head of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at the Presidency.

The Israeli government approved the activity performed by the delegation and manifested its full satisfaction with the negotiations carried out and with the contents of the agreements that had been concluded. “We are proud of what has been accomplished and it represents an unforgivable element for the future evolution of the multilateral relations between the two countries”– stated Abba Eban.

203

Further on, he sent his warm greeting too comrade Minister C. Mănescu and said he would be very pleased to salute him to the next U.N. session, as President of the General Assembly.

Related to that latter matter, I noticed that up to that moment, more than 85 countries from all the continents had sent their favourable agreement to support the candidacy of the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the next U.N. Session.

Satisfied with the information, Abba Eban added that, given the prestige of our country and the personality of comrade C. Mănescu, the election for the first time of a representative from the eastern countries as President of the General Assembly, would have a positive influence on the international political life, as well as on increasing the U.N. role.

Also, like in the information note presented by Sapir, resulted the future intention of comrade President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gh. Maurer to make a visit to Israel and thanked for that on behalf of the Israeli government.

I intervened expressing my opinion that, since it was not a pleasure journey and that such a visit would unconditionally have a political character, too, it should be well prepared in advanced and the moment scheduled should best fit the interests of the two countries.

On the other hand, speaking about the worldwide echo caused by the recent regulation of the diplomatic relations between Romania and F.R.G.1), Abba Eban said that shortly after the event, for the second time, Romania would be in the centre of attention, after the negotiations concluded with Israel.

Tackling the issue of Israel’s relations with F.R.G., he said that at the end of May, current year or at the beginning of June, current year, he would meet Willy Brandt2).

He would discuss about the Israel’s request to be received as Associate Member on the Common Market, about broadening the bilateral relations and about the situation in the Middle East. F.R.G. supported Israel’s request, but still faced reluctance from the other Member States. The “Mediterranean” solution proposed by Willy Brandt might arise some interest, in the meaning that once Morocco and the other riparian countries had been accepted, Israel’s request could be favourably solved, as well.

At the discussion I had with Abba Eban no other guests were present. Before the meal, we also had other short unimportant discussions and courteous exchanges of words with Tekoah, Chelouche and the manager of “Maariv” newspaper.

Since I was the guest of honour, at the table, opposite to me sat P. Sapir, and to the left the wife of the Economic Department within M.F.A. During the meal there were some discussions about the climate, geography, sports and about the organization of elementary and higher education. Besides those, through Mrs. Abba Eban, P. Sapir (who couldn’t speak French) told me that on April 21 there was a large interview he gave to “Davar” and “The Jerusalem Post” newspapers on the negotiations and agreements signed at Bucharest (the interview which appeared on the mentioned date was translated and sent via postal mail to the Vth Direction). He expressed his satisfaction with the attention and warm welcoming he had found at Bucharest and he made positive appreciations on the cities of Bucharest, Ploiesti, Braşov and on the “1 Mai” factories from Ploieşti.

When the meal was over, Abba Eban held a short toast, on which occasion he briefly

presented the evolution of the relations between the two countries and characterized them as good and satisfactory, mentioning, at the same time that the positive results of the

1) See note 1 to doc. 121. 2) Willy Brandt (by his real name Herbert Ernst Karl Frahm) (1913-1992), German politician, leader of the Social-Democratic Party (1964-1987). Mayor of West Berlin (1957-1966), Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs (1966-1969); Chancellor of F.R.G. (1969-1974). Later, President of the Socialist International (1976-1992).

204

negotiations and the agreements concluded marked the beginning of a new stage in the evolution of the relations between our countries, and that there were conditions and perspectives for a future broadening and multilateral development. He said that the Israeli government was preoccupied with putting into practice everything that had been established at Bucharest. There had already been taken actual steps in that direction and for the future everything would continue to be done so the objectives can be materialized and put into practice, in order to ensure the increase of the volume of trade exchanges and cooperation in the industrial, technical and scientific field. He mentioned that, besides the economic and trade importance, the latest arrangements also had an important political aspect for Israel.

In conclusion, he said that he would like that the recently concluded agreements to stand as a fortunate chance for potential similar negotiations and agreements which could be concluded with the other socialist countries, to which Israel had paid a special attention.

In my response to the toast, I thanked for having been invited by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to have lunch, also mentioning that is was an honour for me to find myself at his residence together with two other members of the Israeli government and with the other outstanding personalities within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and mass-media representatives. The discussions and negotiations held in Israel by the delegation of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, led by comrade Deputy Minister V. Răuţă, I appreciated as fruitful and I thanked for the warmly attention and reception offered to the Romanian delegation, for the way the negotiations had been carried out and for the good conditions ensured throughout its stay in Israel.

I appreciated as positive the negotiations carried out at Bucharest and the agreements that were signed and which opened the perspective for a new stage regarding the relations between the two countries. I mentioned that positive results were possible because the two countries manifested mutual initiative and interest in increasing the volume of trade relations and in cooperation in the economic, industrial and scientific fields. Our country was preoccupied with the multilateral development of those relations and we would take the necessary steps in that direction so that the established objectives materialize.

In conclusion, I added that our country maintained and developed cooperation relations with all the states, irrespective of their political and social regime, based on a strict observance of independence and sovereignty, of un-interference in the domestic affairs, of equal rights and mutual benefit. I also agreed on how the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs presented the evolution of the bilateral relations and with the description he made thereof.

I expressed my belief that the mutual interest manifested by the two countries as regarded the negotiations and agreement that had been concluded represented the certain premises for the future increase of the volume of exchange of goods and in the field of economic, technical and scientific cooperation.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20 F/ 1967, f. 98-102.

205

129

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURL ACU,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING INCREASING TENSIONS IN ISRAELI-ARAB RELATIONS

No. 85 154 May 24, 1967, Tel Aviv, 01.40 h. Top secret. Post-haste. On May 23, current year, 16:30 h, I was invited to M.F.A., occasion on which Arie Ilan,

the head of the East Europe Department within the M.F.A., informed me on the events that had developed during the past 24 hours at the Israeli border, as followed:

The source of the current tensed situation resided in the Al Fatah1), terrorist activity, which had been confirmed also by U Thant during the General Assembly.

Israel did everything possible to convince Syria that there had been no concentrations of troupes at the border line.

General Odd Bull2) was invited to perform a check, but, due to the Syrians’ refusal, that check never materialized.

The measures undertaken by Egypt outlined two phases: First, it requested for the U. N. troupes to be retreated from Gaza, and then it massively sent its troupes in the region.

Should Nasser’s intentions have not been aggressive; he would have been satisfied only with the replacement of the U.N. troupes by his troupes.

On May 22, current year, Nasser took a third step3), with his statement on blocking the circulation of Israeli ships in the Gulf of Akaba 4) and the strait of Tiran5).

He mentioned that in 1957 Israel had agreed to retreat its troupes from Sinai, only with the obligation for the U.N. troupes to secure the normal circulation of the Israeli ships on the Red Sea and on the afore-mentioned strait.

The former U.N. Secretary General outlined, during the General Assembly on January 15, 1957, the international importance of the Gulf of Akaba and the right of free circulation of the ships through the strait of Tiran, in compliance with the provisions of International Law.

On March 1, 1957, Israel declared that would protect the ships sailing under its flag.

1) “Al Fatah”, organization of Palestinian refugees established in 1958-1959, detached as the main organization of the Palestinian resistance against Israel. At the beginning of the ‘60s, it created its own military organization, named, al-Assifa” (the Storm). Its leader was Yasser Arafat. After the 1956 war (the Suez Crisis), where he participated as officer in the Egyptian army, he went to Kuwait where he established the resistance movement. After the war from June 1967, “Al Fatah” turned into a political and military organization. Later on, faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formed a fighting program to create a new, progressive, democratic and religiously unengaged Palestine. 2) Odd Bull (1907-1991), Norwegian aviation officer. Member of the Royal Norwegian Air Force since 1931, Lieutenant General since 1960, he had been the deputy head of the Air Force Department (1948-1951), deputy of the Manager of Europe’s Allied Air Forces (1951-1953), commander of the Norwegian army (1953-1956), member of the U.N. Group of Observers in Lebanon (1958). Head of the mediation Commission between the Jordanian, Syrian and Palestinian authorities (1964-1967). 3) On May 18, 1967, upon Egypt’s request, U Thant, The U.N. Secretary General ordered the retreat of the 3 400 “blue helmets” that were stationary in Gaza and their replacement with Egyptian units. On May 24, 1967, the U.N. Security Council examined the situation in the Middle East which had been seriously altered as a consequence of the incidents occurred at the borderline between Israel and Syrian, when the Israeli air force destroyed 6 Syrian MIGs (Apr. 7, 1967). 4) Akaba (Aqaba), Jordanian port located in the gulf with the same name, on the northern land of the Red Sea, in front of the Israeli port of Eylath. 5) Tiran, a small island in the Red Sea which closes the Akaba gulf and which belongs to the Saudi Arabia.

206

The prevention by armed forces of the circulation of its ships through the gulf and the strait of Tiran would be deemed by Israel as an attack allowing for the right of defence to be enforced, in compliance with article 51 of the Charter and for all the necessary measures to be taken in order to ensure the free circulation of the ships through the afore-mentioned gulf and strait.

The situation occurred as a consequence of Nasser having changed the status-quo, of his statement and the events of the past 24 hours led to a very serious and extremely tensioned state of affairs.

Israel also took into consideration that the Egyptian statement was made the day before U Thant arrived to Cairo, which undermined the U.N. action to contribute to the ease of the situation in the Middle East.

Up to that moment, the Eshkol government proved a remarkable calm and refrain. It would further be guided by the same principles, without waving its right to defend with all powers the state sovereignty and independence.

In conclusion, he told me that it was likely for me to be invited again in a short while to M.F.A. in order to be communicated extremely important matters, having taken into consideration the changes occurred in the latest events.


130

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ESCALATION OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN INCIDENTS AN D

MOBILIZATION OF BOTH ARMIES

No. 85 157 May, 25, 1967, Tel Aviv, 9.40 h Top secret. Post-haste. Over the past two days there was an increased tension among the Israeli population, and

the military preparations at the Egyptian border were amplified. Starting with the evening of May 22, current year, the mobilization of the reservists was

developing intensely. Important military units were deployed at the Egyptian border, while around Tel-Aviv,

Jerusalem and other cities anti-craft guns were placed. Military units were placed at important state institutions in Jerusalem (Council of Ministers, M.F.A. etc.) to ensure protection.

Appropriations made in the army’s interests, consisting of buses, trucks etc., caused the public transportation in Tel Aviv and in other cities to become difficult, which led to large traffic-jams and crowds in the bus and taxi stations.

Despite the fact that regular information were broadcasted on the radio and presented in the newspapers on the existence of plenty food reserves in the state deposits, the population massively bought sugar, oil, powder etc.

A large number of tourists postponed their arrival to Israel, and those who were already there were leaving in advance, requesting for additional flights to the U.S.A., England and other European countries.

Given the tensed situation in the area, upon the proposition of the Israeli government, the Finnish Prime Minister [Rafael Paasio, 1903-1980, PM 1966-1968] interrupted his visit and returned to his country several days before the established date.

207

In the morning of May 24, current year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, left for Washington to have contacts probably with [President] Johnson and at the State Department and to be present throughout the works of the Security Council on the situation in the Middle East1).

He would also make a stop to Paris, where he would be received by General de Gaulle, and to London, by the Prime Minister Wilson2).

On May 23 and 24, most of the heads of diplomatic offices were invited to M.F.A., where they were informed on the serious situation caused by the closure of the strait of Tiran, outlining that the measures undertaken by Egypt over the past days endangered the keeping of peace.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


131


THE DAMAGE TO THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH FROM JER USALEM DUE TO THE JORDANIAN-ISRAELI ARTILLERY SHOOTING

No. 85 178 June 6, 1967, Tel Aviv, 19.10 h Top secret. Post-haste. On the night of June 5-6, current year, as a result of the exchange of fire and of gunfire

between the Israeli and Jordanian troupes in Jerusalem, the Romanian Orthodox church was damaged, as it was hit by bombshells artillery. Two walls were punched, and an unexploded projectile fell within the altar, damaging a part of the painting on the wall. Archimandrite Florea Lucian, who was in the church at that time, was not injured. Until the ceasefire, we had him housed at the premises of our office in Tel Aviv.

Due to the fact that the fights were continuing, we could not get in contact with the respective Israeli authorities. Unless the artillery bombshell in the church exploded, the archimandrite would inform the authorities, in the coming period, to proceed to defusing it.

(Ss) V. Georgescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1967, f. 249.

1) The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban, went on a rapid tour (May 24-26) to Paris, London and Washington. Altogether, at New York, the Security Council met on May 24, 1967 in an emergency meeting upon Canada and Denmark’s requests, which introduced a draft resolution asking all the parties involved to refrain from any steps that could have aggravated the already tensioned current situation. The meeting of the Security Council ended on May 30, without any results. On May 26, 1967, President Nasser firmly declared that “an Israeli attack against U.A.R. or Syria might trigger a total conflict, within which the main Arab objective would be the destruction of Israel”. 2) Harold James Wilson (b. 1916), British politician. Economic assistant to the War Committee (1940-1943), head of Economy and Statistics within the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (1943-1944). Member of the Chamber of Communes since 1945, State Secretary for Foreign Trade (1947-1951), Leader of the Labour Party (since 1963), Prime-Minister under several cabinets between Oct. 16, 1964-June 19, 1970, later on between 1974-1976.

208

132


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT

No. 85 179 June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv, 0.35 h Top secret. Post-haste. In the statement made the L. Eshkol before the Knesset on the evening of June 5, current

year, he outlined, among other things, that Israel had to respond to a war which proved to be a seriously defensive war, and Israel’s attack on Syria and Jordan was a response to the fact that their aviation and artillery had joined the attack against Israel.

In relation to that, Abba Eban stated, during his press conference on June 5, current year, that the statement made by the President of the Council of Ministers right after the fights with Egypt began, according to which Israel would not attack any state as long as Israel would not be attacked, focused precisely on preventing Syria, Jordan and the other Arab countries from entering into action.

Eshkol showed that during the almost three weeks of waiting, the countries in the East and West could not reinstate in the Middle East the situation before the tension, but, moreover, the same period of time was used by Egypt and by the other Arab countries to make preparations for the attack against Israel.

Abba Eban outlined that Israel’s main objective was to annihilate the attempt of the Arab armies to conquer his country, also to raise the blockade and break the investment, without nevertheless having as purpose territorial conquests.

Referring to the stages previous to the armed conflict in Sinai, he said that at the beginning there was the deployment of some Egyptian planes, after that followed the artillery bombing on the Israeli border localities, then the Israeli retaliation, which resulted in a broadening of the conflict1).

On June 6, current year, in the morning, Abba Eban left for New York to take part in the works of the Security Council and to have discussions at the State Department2).

The diplomatic groups estimated that, in case of armistice, Israel would not agree to retreat its troupes from the occupied territories in Sinai and Gaza, only unless Egypt raised its blockade from the port of Eylath.

That position would be supported also within the Security Council, by U.S.A. and England.

(Ss) V. Georgescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1967, f. 250-251. 1) The large scale hostilities between the two parties outburst on June 5, 1967. U.A.R. mentioned about an “unprovoked surprise attack” of the Israeli air force, while Israel stated that it “counterattacked in response to the fire opened by the Egyptian artillery and air force on certain Israeli positions”. Immediately after the outburst of hostilities, several Arab countries (U.A.R., Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Algeria, Sudan, Kuwait) announced that they were at war with Israel, with no official declarations of war, as they had never ceased to consider themselves at war with Israel, from a legal and technical point of view. 2) The U.N. Security Council met in an emergency meeting on June 5, 1967. The following day, it unanimously adopted a resolution asking for the ceasefire, but that resolution was not observed, as the battles continued until June 10, 1967.

209

133


THE STATUS OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN CONFLICT

No. 85 180 June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv, 19.10 h Top secret. Post-haste. On June 7, current year, continued the fights between the Israeli troupes and [those] of

the neighbouring Arab countries. The main operations were in Sinai and Gaza, where, according to the Israeli point of

view, their armies did not face a very strong resistance. At the Jordanian border with Jerusalem the conflicts wee intense, while the Jordanian

artillery continued to bomb it and the Israel troupes were fighting for the surrounding of the old town of Jerusalem.

The diplomatic groups commented on the success obtained by the Israeli aviation, even from the first day, as an element that led to a change in the course of events, in favour of Israel1).

At the same time, it could be noticed the prudence regarding the estimation for the future development of the fights, in the meaning that in case of a longer war the Israeli army could not successfully deal with it.

The Yugoslavian minister said that, due to the victories obtained even from the first day, Israel was able to start negotiations with the Arab countries and to support its requests based on the achievements up to that moment. I noticed the preoccupation of the said diplomat to get certain actual elements which might show that the Israeli army was the one that attacked the Egyptian troupes2).

Referring to the losses caused to the Arab countries by the Israeli aviation, the Soviet ambassador [Chuvakhin] estimated that it was still too early to draw conclusions on the military operations and induced the idea that a counterattack of the Arab countries could not be excluded3). The Office considered that, despite the military success presented by the Israeli party, there were also major human and material losses suffered up to that moment by the Israeli troupes and yet, there was a preoccupation regarding the possible continuation of the military operations over a longer period of time.

Although up to the moment, the Israeli government did not express its position toward the appeal made by the Security Council to cease fire, we estimated that Israel would not take too much time in adopting a favourable position toward it.

(Ss) V. Georgescu AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1967, f. 252-253.

1) In the first two days of confrontations, there were reported important successes of the Israeli army: the destruction on the ground of the largest part of the Egyptian air force, the conquest of Gaza area, an important penetration in Sinai Peninsula and the move further into Jordan. 2) On June 6, 1967, President Nasser accused the participation in the battle, next to Israel, of some American and British aircraft. U.A.R. broke the diplomatic relations with U.S.A. (while the ones with Great Britain had been broken since 1965), and the same did Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Algeria, Yemen and Mauritania. On the same day, the Suez Canal was closed and the Arab countries gathered at Baghdad announced the cessation of Arab oil deliveries to U.S.A. and Great Britain. Both occidental powers immediately rejected the Egyptian accusations. 3) USSR accused Israel of aggression asking, at the same time, the U.N. “to condemn Israel and to take the necessary measures to reinstate peace in the Near East”, reserving “the right to take any actions imposed by the situation”.

210

134

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI POSITION TOWARDS THE PEACE AG REEMENTS

No. 85 185 June 12, 1967, Tel Aviv, 01.15 h Top secret. Post-haste. On June 10, current year1), representatives of political parties, government members,

held conferences at the meetings and public assemblies in the main cities of Israel. On that occasion, Yigal Allon2), Minster of Labour, outlined, among other things, that

the Israeli government would not be satisfied this time with provisional agreements, like in the past, because they had no contribution to the regulation of the conflict. Any territorial arrangements would be conditioned by a permanent solution of all the peoples. Israel desired a peace and cooperation agreement with the neighbouring countries, in the interest of both parties.

Referring to the Palestinian matter, he mentioned that, due to the fact that currently the entire Palestine3), and the respective Arab population was in the hands of Israel, new favourable conditions had been created in order to solve that issue once and for all, including the issue of refugees4). Moshe Carmel5), Minister of Transport said that the hostilities, the war spirit and the race of arming up should be replaced with a permanent treaty of peace, based on the acknowledgment of the right to existence of all the Middle east countries; referring to the experience gained in the past, he outlined that the cease of fire and the armistice agreement were still far away and that Israel should not believe in the promises made by the foreigners.

He asked for measures to deal with political pressure and also he asked for the country’s security to be guaranteed, based on its own forces.

Mordechai Bentov (MAPAM), Minister of Housing [1966-1969], said that he could not understand, although he was a friend of the Soviet Union and of the other countries that loved

1) Hostilities ceased on a general scale until June 10, 1967, after the parties in conflict had successively accepted repeated appeals from the Security Council on ceasefire: Israel and Jordan on June 7; Israel and U.A.R. on June 8; Israel and Syria on June 9-10. 2) Yigal Allon (1918-1980), Israeli politician. He conducted the Haganah operations (1945-1947); member of the third Knesset, Minister of Labour (1961-1968); Vice-Prime Minister (1968), Minister of Integration and Immigrants (1968-1969), Minister of National Education and Culture (1969). Secretary General of the Party Ahdut Haavoda. 3) Following the armed operations, Israel had occupied: Gaza, the entire Sinai Peninsula (reaching the Eastern bank of Suez Canal and taking control over the strategic point Sharm-el-Sheik at the entrance in the Akaba gulf), Cisjordan (the part of Jordan located on the Western bank of the Jordan river), the Arab part of Jerusalem, the Golan heights (a strip of 20 km inland the Syrian territory), in a total territories 3 times larger than its territory up to then. 4) The first Arab-Israeli armed conflict (1948) had caused a massive exodus of Arab inhabitants from the territory of former Palestine to different Arab countries in the neighbourhood. To the Israeli authorities, Palestinians were considered as “volunteer exiled people”, which left Palestine at the call of their leader. The Arab point of view attributed to Israel the responsibility for the departure of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. The issue of the refugees was turned into a humanitarian assistance matter, assessed by the U.N. In this respect, in December 1949 U.N.R.W.A was established (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees), a special body the mandate of which extended continuously. U.N.R.W.A. statistics from 1969 showed that in 1948 the number of Palestine refugees reached 1 395 074. 5) Moshe Carmel (1911-2003), Israeli politician. Emissary of Histadrut in Diaspora (1935-1936), member of the Supreme command of Haganah (1948); Minister of Transportation and Telecommunication (1955-1959, 1965-1969); member of Knesset (1948-1965), leader of the Ahdut Haavoda-Poalei Sion Party (1955-1965), then LP.

211

peace, how USSR could base its policy in the Middle East on inexistent facts, on imaginary estimations, totally and intentionally disregarding the reality.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


135


THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES FOR NORMALIZING THE INTERNAL SITUATION

No. 85 190 June 14, 1967, Tel Aviv, 0.40 h Top secret. Post-haste. In the statement made by L. Eshkol on June 12, current year before the Knesset in

Jerusalem, after having presented a short resume of how the events were going before the hostilities, after he named the victories, he said: “To the nations of the world I would like to say not to make illusions that the Israeli state is ready to go back to the situation before the hostilities. The newly emerged situation may represent a starting point for peace in the Middle East and direct discussions with the Arab countries”.

Sending the message to the Arab countries, he said that “Israel acted in the last instance because it was given no other choice but to defend its life and rights, and, today, no power in the world will be able to take us out of this land”.

Shavy Ehuda, deputy and Deputy Minister of Development, told me on June 13, current year, that the above-mentioned statement was made as a consequence of the decisions adopted by the Israeli government during its meeting on June 11, current year, which decided not to retreat the troupes from the conquered positions and to have direct discussions with the neighbouring Arab countries in the view of concluding a peace treaty, with no intermediaries or mediators. There were adopted measures for a normalization of the economic and social life in the country, as well as on the occupied territories, where the military administration had been introduced. Also, there were formulated ideas, in principle acquired by most of the government members, in the meaning that Jerusalem as a whole would become the capital of Israel, and based on securities, the free sailing of the ships through the Tiran strait 1) should be ensured. The borderline with Syrian should be adjusted so as to annul Syria’s advantage, which, up to that moment, had the heights in the area of the central plateau. There were established the commissions to assess the situation and formulated proposals to the government in regard to the territorial Palestinian matter, to the refugees matter and that of the use of the Jordan waters.

The final position related to those mentioned above was to be set by the Israeli government during the negotiations, after the position of the Arab countries was made known.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


1) On February 8, 1968, Israel re-established the circulation in the Aqaba gulf, holding control, yet, on the Tiran strait (at the gulf entrance). The first ship that crossed the strait was a Soviet trade ship, on its way to a Jordanian port.

212

136


CERTAIN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM ISRAEL

No. 85 194 June 15, 1967, Tel Aviv, 19.15 h Top Secret. Urgent The actions taken for rallying political forces and reuniting certain parties are discussed

and commented on in political and parliamentary circles. Recent contacts and discussions between the representatives of the leadership of the

MAPAI and Rafi parties1) have grown in number, and many of the program differences between the two parties, which led to the split of 1965, have been resolved once the representatives of the Rafi Party became a part of the government. The contacts between the leaderships of the Ahdut Haavoda and MAPAI parties are continued for the purposes of establishing a common political platform for their future unification.

In the past two weeks, the Rafi and Ahdut Haavoda parties have organized meeting and rallies, where leaders, such as Peretz [Peres], Dayan, Yigal Allon, Moshe Carmel, eulogize the role of the Israeli army, its strong defence, its victories in the recent military conflict, openly supporting the thesis according to which the political and diplomatic actions of the Israeli government must defend the victories obtained by the army in combat and to ensure boarder rectifications.

In the circles of these parties, people are talking more and more about the fact that Eshkol, Abba Eban, Golda Meir are not sufficiently determined and that they are focusing too much on pacifism and negotiations.

The “Haola Maze” newspaper, commenting on the armed forces, on June 11, current year, criticizes the Minister of Foreign Affairs and suggests that Abba Eban should be appointed ambassador of Israel to New York, in order to vacate the post for another person who is more suited for this stage of the political developments in the Middle East.

In its cover article from June 13, current year, “Haaretz” newspaper of Rafi Party, asks for the replacement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs with a more single-minded figure. The news was also broadcasted by “Kol-Israel” Radio within the press review section.

We mention that, in the past week, Ben Gurion and Peretz [Peres], the leader of the Rafi Party, visited the occupied territories – Gaza, Sinai, Jordan valley, Old Jerusalem, where they held conferences for the soldiers in order to boost “the troops’ moral”.

People are also talking more and more about Moshe Dayan’s skill, about his key role in the army’s victory and eulogistic appraisals are made in relation to his political personality and his capacity of becoming a state leader. In the MAPAM political circles, it is believed that, if no negotiations are to be held with the Arab countries, and the help of the U.S.S.R.2) is

1) The Rafi Party (Reshimat Po’alei Yisrael Ubilti Miflagtiyn – List of Israeli workers and non-partisans) was founded in 1965 from a left faction from MAPAI, mainly focusing their activity on stopping the degradation of the public image of Ben Gurion, following the Lavon scandal. Joining Knesset, it supported a social protection program. After the Six-day war, it promoted Moshe Dayan as Minister of Defence in the national union government and Levi Eshkol. In 1968, after the stepping down of Ben Gurion, Rafi reunites with MAPAI and Ahdut Haavoda-Poa’alei Sion, forming the Labour Party. 2) On June 9, 1967, in Moscow, a meeting was held, reuniting the leaders of the communist and labour parties and of the governments of some socialist countries (People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, German Democratic Republic, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People’s Republic of Poland, Socialist Republic of Romania, People’s Republic of Hungary and U.S.S.R.) and examining the situation in the Near East. All, except Romania, signed a declaration in which the “Israeli aggression” was condemned and

213

to contribute to the reorganization of their military forces, it will not be unusual for certain political circles to ask for Dayan to fill in the position of Prime Minister.

The office emphasizes the latest increase, in particular, of the political activities conducted by the far-right Rafi, Herut, etc. parties.

After the unification of the MAPAI and Rafi parties, it is possible that, within the MAPAI party, the old misunderstanding may be renewed between the Russian and Polish emigration, led by L. Eshkol, P. Sapir and Kadish Lutz [1895-1972] (President of the Knesset, 1959-1969) and the political current of the young people (Sabri) from the new generation, led by M. Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin3), the current Chief of Staff, and S. Peretz [Peres], the president [SG]of the Rafi Party, in the fight for political power.


137

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA

REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONF LICT

No. 85 198 June 18, 1967, Tel Aviv, 13.20 h Top Secret. Urgent In the past few days, in Israel, the economic and social activity has started to return to

normal. In fact, following the war, not too many damages were caused on the territory of Israel

by the aviation and artillery of the Arab countries. From the main cities, Tel Aviv and Haifa were bombarded by the Jordanian and Syrian

artillery and the border kibbutzim. The city suffering great damage, as a result of the bombardments of the Jordanian aviation and artillery, was Jerusalem. Nonetheless, only a few quarries from this city suffered more significant damages, broken roofs and shattered windows, dead and injured civilians being recorded.

In diplomatic circles, people comment that the large quantities of captured munitions, tanks, cannons, airplanes, other spoils of war, cover by far the damages suffered by Israel during the war.

In Tel Aviv, as in other cities, cars and trucks captured from Jordan, Gaza and Sinai have already started to travel on the streets.

The food and vegetable supply is satisfactory, a price increase by up to 8% being noticed.

All schools and universities have resumed their activity. The decentralization of soldiers over 30 continues.

which emphasized the fact that the Arab countries would have “supported them in fending off the aggression and defending their territorial independence and integrity”. The signing countries also decided on ending their diplomatic relations with Israel (U.S.S.R., Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia – June 10, Poland, Hungary – June 12, Yugoslavia – June 13). 3) Yitzhak Rabin (1922-1995), Israeli politician. His father immigrated to Israel from U.S.A., and his mother was one of the first members of the “Haganah” organization. After graduating from school, Rabin started his military career by voluntarily joining the “Palmach” organization. He conduct his activity in this organization and then in the Ministry of National Defence (FAI), for 27 years. Chief of Staff during the war of 1967. On January 1, 1968 he retired from FAI, being appointed on March 5, 1968, as ambassador to Washington, mission which he concluded in 1973. Leader of the Labour Party (1974-1977, 1992-1995). Prime Minister (1974-1977, 1992- 1995).

214

The Director of the Economic Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (M.F.A.), Chelouche, told me that the state budget and additional expenses determined by military actions will be covered in three ways:

a. domestic loans. b. increase of direct and indirect taxes from the people. c. collecting of funds and donations from Jewish communities residing abroad and

foreign loans. Until now, said Chelouche, the funds already collected from Jewish communities,

amount to several hundreds of millions of dollars, exceeding by far their expectations. If such amounts will continue to grow, there won’t be any need to resort to foreign

loans. (Ss) V. Georgescu


138


THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL AFTER THE WAR ENDED

No. 85 200 June 19, 1967, Tel Aviv, 13.15 h Top Secret. Urgent To your telegram no. 05/0023091): The Israeli Government made new efforts to shed light on the political events which

took place after the cease of military hostilities. Therefore, on Friday, June 16, and Saturday, June 17, current year, members of

government and leaders of parties have held conferences in the main cities of the country. The newspapers from June 19, current year, cover their speeches (“Our life” of June 18,

current year). We also outline the interview recently given by Ben Gurion to a correspondent of the

Japanese newspaper “Shinbun”, regarding the state of the territories and towns conquered by the Israeli army (“Our life” of June 18, current year). To summarize, he stated:

- Jerusalem will always be the capital of Israel, regardless of the decisions to be made by the U.N.

- Sinai, based on discussions with Egypt, might be surrendered, if the free movement of ships through the Straits of Tiran and Suez Canal will be secured.

- The western territory of Jordan should be granted independence, under U.N. aegis.

(Ss) V. Georgescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1967, f. 285.

1) Reference to the telegram sent on June 17, 1967 to the Legation in Tel Aviv by Petru Burlacu, deputy of the minister of Foreign Affairs, in which it is mentioned: “Please always monitor and inform us whether and in what way the responsible Israeli figures give statements [...] evincing the wish or intent as to using the situation created after the military operations for territorial annexations or for obtaining similar benefits”. See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv (sent), vol. 1/1967, f. 86.

215

139

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURL ACU,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY TOWARDS

THE CONFLICT WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES

No. 85 201 June 20, 1967, Tel Aviv, 8.25 h Top Secret. Urgent Together with comrade N. Ionescu, we welcomed at the office, on June 17, current year,

comrades S. Mikunis, Secretary General of the Israeli Communist Party, and I. Drugman, member of the Political Bureau, per their request.

The discussions were focused on current events, on certain meetings with the Soviet ambassador, before and after the cease fire.

From the beginning, they personally thanked the Central Committee of the Romanian Communist Party and comrade Nicolae Ceausescu, for the adopted position and for the actions taken with respect to the crisis in the Near East1).

They praised the documents of the party and our state as being consistent and the principles as objective, constructive and oriented towards the interests of both parties.

They considered the position of C.P.S.U. as being one-sided and supportive of the Arab countries, and accuse Israel of being against the socialist countries’ policy of peace keeping and settling conflicts by way of negotiations and not by way of force.

During the discussion of June 6, current year, ambassador Chuvakhin2), when receiving the Resolution of the Israeli Communist Party, adopted right after the beginning of the armed conflicts, as an answer, he stated that the Arab countries are right, [that] Israeli C.P. [should] fight against the government and declare Israel an aggressor.

S. Mikunis told him that the military conflicts and war stem from the measures taken by Nasser for the evacuation of the U.N. troops, the blocking of the Straits of Tiran, the gathering the troops at Israel’s border, the declarations of war made by the Egyptian leaders.

Israel was forced to rally the entire military force, in order to defend their right to life. The Israeli government was in favour of immediately ceasing fire, for negotiations

between the fighting parties, and against territorial annexations, without mentioning who was the aggressor. Israel led a war for its national defence, which was imposed on it by the Arab countries.

The U.S.S.R., instead of adopting a position for avoiding war and maintaining peace, and of holding an essential role in this respect, was the trigger factor which turned Egypt against Israel.

On June 12, current year, amongst other discussed issues, the Soviet ambassador informed him that, in the territories occupied by Jordan, the Israeli troops are exterminating the Arab people and forcing them to flee from their towns and to behave as Hitler supporters.

1) On June 11, 1967, in Bucharest, the Statement of the C.C. of R.C.P. and of the government of S.R. of Romania regarding the situation in the Near East was made public. Romania believes that it is necessary to waive the use of force, to respect the independence and sovereignty of the states in the region, and to lead negotiations between the parties in question in order to find adequate solutions. See “Scânteia”, Year XXXVI, no. 736, June 11, 1967. 2) Dmitri Stepanovich Chuvakhin (born 1903), Soviet diplomat, former envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Tirana (1946-1952), extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador in Canada (1953-1958), director of M.F.A. (1959-1964), ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Tel Aviv (1964-1967).

216

S. Mikunis, who, in the morning of the same day, visited together with the editors of certain Israeli and foreign newspapers, this region, told him that he had seen nothing of the sort.

On the contrary, actions are been taken for normalizing life, for helping the wounded, children and people.

The Soviet ambassador immediately corrected himself stating that the above refer to Gaza and Sinai, both in respect to the people, and the prisoners, emphasizing the fact that the war is not over yet, and that it will continue.

U.S.S.R will give munitions to the Arabs, and other measures will follow as well, and it will find a way to punish Israel.

S. Mikunis told him that this policy violates the ethics of a socialist state, and that it goes against the Marxist-Leninist principles, that it has a circumstantial nature, which supports the Pan-Arab alliance, the Arab nationalism.

In time such position will prove to be a harsh blow not only for the Arabs, but also for the U.S.S.R.. He presented as an example to be followed, the correct, objective and principle driven attitude adopted by our country, which did not appeal to the ambassador.

M. Sneh warned him that, if C.P.S.U., after the severance of the diplomatic relations, attacks the Israeli C.P., he will respond in the same way and with the same means, holding sufficient deeds and arguments. Israel is not solely guilty of the tragic fate of the Egyptian prisoners from deserted Sinai – said S. Mikunis. Those who are sent back over the Suez Canal, instead of welcoming them, the Egyptian shoot them for fear of negatively influencing the remaining troops’ moral. Israel, unable to provide food for them, decided that, after disarming them, it will return all of them to Egypt, action which is currently been taken.

We will send you by the earliest mail the Conversation Note, where the discussed issues will be presented in detail.


140


CERTAIN ISRAELI REACTIONS TO THE POSITION OF U.S.S. R. AND OF OTHER SOCIALIST STATES TOWARDS THE CONFLICT IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 85205 June 23, 1967, Tel Aviv, 14.45 h Top Secret. Urgent The Office notices that, in the past week, in particular after the decision of the Israeli

government of June 18, namely to react with all force to the insults of the Soviet Union, in the political circles and in the press, organized action is taken to present the Soviet Union as the main supporter of the conflict in the Middle East and enemy of the peace.

Cover articles and editorials of most Israeli newspapers provided arguments according to which the soviet policy1) is based on anti-Semite hatred; comparisons are made between the

1) On June 14, 1967, U.S.S.R. submitted to the Security Council a draft resolution asking the condemnation of “ Israel’s acts of aggression and the withdrawal of its forces based on the truce lines in 1949”. The resolution did not receive the required number of votes. On June 17, 1967, U.S.S.R’s proposal on convening an emergency extraordinary session of the U.N. General Assembly for discussing the situation in the Near East, was approved.

217

propaganda conducted during the time of Gobbels2) and that currently conducted by the Soviet Union against Jews (“Davar” newspaper). “Haaretz” newspaper writes: “If Mr. Kosygin3), by defending the Hitlerian aggressors in Egypt and Syria, is prepared to incur the risk of a worldwide conflagration, the entire free world will join their forces against the despotism of the Soviet imperialism”. By ignoring the truth, Kosygin demonstrated once more that the Soviet doctrine is based on lies and falseness in the international arena, writes the “Lamerhav” newspaper. Newspapers “Viaţa noastră”, “ Information” and “Jerusalem Post” criticize the U.S.S.R. harshly: “Hitlerism supporter, enemy of the peace”, “anti-Semitism”, they are looking to reconstruct the extermination of the Jews” etc. Moreover, the recent speech delivered by comrade Gomułka in Warsaw before the union active members is deemed as anti-Semite and as encouraging the Polish people to treat Jews as enemies of the country. The passage in his speech referring to Israel is deemed as a horrid act, of instigation, which it denounces with determination and disgust. Concerning the position of the party and of our government, they were very pleased of which we already informed you; we reiterate that it is continued to be discussed and commented on favourably in the political, governmental, parliamentary and M.F.A. circles and amongst the people. However, in higher circles, in the press comments, newspaper cover articles, our position is partially presented, the idea of withdrawing the Israeli troops from the occupied territories being sometimes left out. The diplomats of our office took stand every time and promptly provided the declaration and other measures taken in relation to the conflict in the Near East.


141


FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISRAEL I AND FOREIGN COMMENTS TO ROMANIA’S ATTITUDE ON THE NEAR EAST

No. 85218 July 2, 1967, Tel Aviv, 12.40 h Top Secret. Urgent Both the speech delivered by the President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gheorghe

Maurer, during the U.N.’s General Assembly1), and the entire approach of the Socialist

2) Joseph Paul Goebbels (1897-1945), German politician, leader of the National-Socialist Party, theoretician of Nazism, Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945). 3) Alexander Nikolayevich Kosygin (1904-1980), Soviet politician. First Vice-president of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.(1957). Member of the C.C. (since 1939), Acting member (1948-1952) and full member (1960-80) of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of C.P., Prime-Minister of U.S.S.R. (Oct. 15, 1964-Oct. 23, 1980). 1) On June 23, 1967, the President of the Council of Ministers of Romania, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, delivered a speech within the extraordinary session of the U.N. General Assembly, in which it presented Romania’s view in relation to the situation in the Near East. During the extraordinary session, the Romanian Prime Minister had numerous meeting with the leaders of the delegations in New York. See, for details, “Scânteia”, Year XXXVI, no. 7381 of June 24, 1967.

218

Republic of Romania as to the conflict in the Near East, is extensively and favourably commented upon in the political, diplomatic and newspaper circles.

We will further provide some of the major comments made during the discussions conducted by the head of the office and the other diplomats.

The ambassadors of France and Holland and A[haron] Beker, Secretary General of Histadrut, said that our country, by adopting an objective guideline with respect to Israel and the Arab states, and by maintaining diplomatic relations with these countries, succeeded in fundamentally assessing the conflict.

Nixon, the former Vice-president of the U.S.A., on June 23, before P. Sapir, Minister of Finance, stated that Romania showed courage, dignity, character and independence in the position adopted in relation to the conflict in the Near East. “The Romania I have met a couple of months ago2) is an organized, well-managed country and holds all that is necessary to be independent”.

Y[aakov] Hazan [1899-1992] and Ifrat Aaron, at the leadership of the MAPAM and Hapoel parties, the editor of “Hayom” newspaper, repeated that Romania is the only country from the socialist countries bloc which did not condemn Israel of aggression, it focused on the two key elements of the situation in this region, the withdrawal of the troops at the original borders prior to the commencement of the hostilities, and direct negotiations between the countries in conflict. Even if this position is not yet fully understood by some countries, it will ultimately triumph, since, in this part of the world, lasting peace must be achieved.


142

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDI NG

CERTAIN ATTITUDES OF THE FOREIGN DIPLOMATS AND THE ISRAELI OFFICIALS TOWARDS ROMANIA’S POSITION IN

THE NEAR EAST CONFLICT

No. 85228 July 14, 1967, Tel Aviv, 14.00 h Top Secret. Urgent In diplomatic circles, amongst Israeli figures, state apparatus, and journalists, the

Summit of the socialist countries in Budapest1) is extensively debated, in particular, Romania’s failure to attend this Summit.

During the separate discussions I had with Pauls [Dr Rolf Friedemann ~, 1915-2002], ambassador of Federal Republic Germany in Israel [1965-1968], Francisca Fernandez Ball, ambassador of Guatemala, [Dr] Walter Peinsipp, ambassador of Austria [1966-1968], and other diplomats with whom I came into contact at the reception organized by the French ambassador on the National Day of the Republic of France, July 14, speculative questions materialized, such as:

2) Visit of Minister Sapir to Bucharest, at the head of the Israeli economic delegation, in April 1967. See, doc. 124. 1) Reference to the meeting of the party and state leaders of the countries signing the Moscow Declaration (June 9), which were in favour of supplementing the political, economic and military aid provided to the Arab countries, the political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict based on the “immediate and unconditioned withdrawal” of the Israeli troops from the occupied territories.

219

• Why didn’t Romania attend the summit? • Did the participating states decide on (economic or political) measures of retaliation

against Romania? • Will Romania still be part of the Warsaw Pact? Alongside these questions, words of praise were cast regarding the courage of Romania

and the Romanian government of taking an independent stand in the Near East conflict. The position of our party and government was explained to everyone, mentioning that

the participants who attended the Summit in Budapest have no reasons to take any measures of retaliation, that there aren’t any political conflicts between Romania and the countries participating in the Warsaw Treaty, that it deems the Warsaw Treaty as valid, as long as there is N.A.T.O., and that it understands not only to fulfil its duties under the Treaty, but also to improve its defence ability, believing that, this way, the defence ability of the countries participating in the Treaty will also be improved.

As a result of such explanations, each considered Romania’s position as being fair, the ambassador of Austria declaring that, although he represents the interests of other countries, he agrees with Romania’s position.

The State Minister of Israel, Begin, the Minister of Transport, Moshe Carmel, and the Head of the Western Division with Israeli, attending this reception, praising Romania’s position in connection to the Israeli-Arab conflict, criticized France’s position, expressing opinions that France will converge to Romania’s position and will end up lifting the embargo on the munitions provided to Israel2), that the discussions conducted by Simon Peres, general Limon and others, are almost completed both in favour of Israel, and France.

Asking Zeev Shek, head of Western Europe within M.F.A., what does “both in favour of Israel, and France” mean, he answered that France needs to sale munitions, and Israel needs to buy the munitions France needs to sell.

Both from the discussions with the aforesaid, and the discussions with journalist such as Y. Soken, manager of the “Haaretz” newspaper, Pedatzur, secretary of “Lamerhav” newspaper, Aline [?], journalist with “Information” and others, it results that Israel stands its grounds in the conflict settlement issue.

No negotiations, no declaration from the Arab parties, whereby Israel is acknowledged, the conquered territories will not be abandoned by the Israeli armies.

Moreover, Israel will fight back, maybe even through armed incursions of sanctioning, if the Arab countries will ever open fire on the Israeli soldiers.

(Ss) N. Ionescu


2) Following the Six-day war, France’s position in relation to Israel was significantly altered: thus, President de Gaulle, blaming the authorities in Tel Aviv of committing an aggression, imposed an embargo on the 50 airplanes ordered and paid by Israel; in addition, it also imposed an embargo on the export to Israel of spare parts for the previously purchased airplanes, which would immediately lead to disapproving reactions.

220

143

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA,

REGARDING THE CONVERSATION WITH ABBA EBAN AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 85 240 July 31, 1967, Tel Aviv, 20.00 h Top Secret. Urgent On July 31, current year, 11.15 p.m., I have delivered the Verbal Note referring to the

approval by the Council of Ministers of the Economic Technical and Scientific Cooperation Agreement signed by Romania and Israel on April 14, 1967.

I was welcomed by the Minister Abba Eban at its private residence in Jerusalem. He insisted on telling me that he gladly welcomes at any time the representatives of Romania. He has great respect for the leaders of the Romanian state, for the President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, and for the Minister Corneliu Mănescu. He has great respect for the policy of the Romanian state, an original and independent policy.

He entirely agrees with the principle according to which small and medium-sized countries should actively participate in the settlement of the problems hovering over mankind. He hopes this principle will be applied in practice with more courage in the year to come, in the period when Minister Corneliu Mănescu will be the president of the U.N. General Assembly. Both Israel and Israel supporters assure the Romanian government that they will vote for the Romanian candidate competing for the position of President of the U.N. General Assembly.

In trying to apologize for disturbing him and to show him that the M.F.A chief of staff made a mistake by scheduling this meeting with him, he answered that it was no mistake and that it was his pleasure to welcome me.

I told him I was honoured by him welcoming me and that I had the great pleasure of presenting His Excellency with the Verbal Note, whereby it is informed that the Council of Ministers of S.R. of Romania approved the agreements signed with Israel on April 14, 1967.

Abba Eban read the Verbal Note and said that he gladly accepts such notes. He instantly asked Palmor Eliezer (officer in charge with Romanian matters within the department dealing with us, who participated in the discussions), whether Israel ratified the agreement and whether such note was sent to Romania. In the absence of a clear response from him, Abba Eban thanked me again for the lovely news I gave him, and told me that he will inform the Prime Minister and his colleagues.

He sent best wishes to Minister Corneliu Mănescu and he asked when Minister Valeriu Georgescu will arrive. He seemed surprised when I told him that comrade Valeriu Georgescu will arrive shortly. He expressed his wish to talk to him, given that he knows he participated in the debates of the Great National Assembly on the foreign policy of S.R. Romania1). Although he seemed interested in the debates, he would like to talk to comrade Valeriu Georgescu after his arrival at the office. I told him that I will inform comrade Valeriu Georgescu in this respect.

The meeting took 25 minutes. A copy of the Verbal Note shall be sent by the earliest mail.

(Ss) N. Ionescu AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1967, f. 348-349.

1) See “Scânteia”, Year XXXV, no. 7413, July 26, 1967.

221

144


MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS MEETING WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFF AIRS OF

THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 85247 August 5, 1967, Tel Aviv, 12.00 h Top Secret. Urgent I was welcomed to Jerusalem by Abba Eban, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on August 4,

current year After being informed in respect to the debates and documents approved by the session of

the Great National Assembly, I insisted on our position regarding the settlement of the conflict in the Near East.

Abba Eban praised the lucidity, clarity and perseverance with which our country, by the position take, actively contributes to the settlement of the issues in the Near East, as well as in other regions of the world. He will carefully examine the documents, finding in Romania’s position several common points with Israel.

He made positive comments with respect to our foreign policy and mentioned that he managed to better understand our main approach in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict following the discussions conducted at the U.N. with comrade President Ion Gheorghe Maurer, in respect to whom he informed its government in detail.

For Israel, as solitary state, respecting sovereignty and independence is crucial, and, as a sovereign state, it is entitled to settle its own problems, based on non-interference with the domestic business, and the Great Powers will not be able to, nor be entitled to, impose their own opinions on the smaller countries, since they have their dignity and the right to decide for themselves on the foreign policy and the path to be taken.

The Romania diplomacy showed many countries the way to maintain relations with all states, irrespective of their political, philosophical and social regime, and succeeded in maintaining relations with all socialist countries, in spite all the conflicts between them.

He mentioned that the main trigger of the war was the failure to abide by the provisions of the U.N. Charter, the cornering, blocking and attempt to forcefully liquidate Israel, which, since acquiring its independence, it lived in a state of besiegement.

The current relative calm, in a state of belligerence, can only be stable through the ceasing of the state of war and the conclusion of peace treaties.

Israel’s principles and means of settling the current litigious issues were extensively presented and debated at the U.N.

The conflict and consequences of the war cannot be resolved only by the simple retreat of the Israeli troops, the legal, political and psychological position of the Arab countries towards Israel must also change.

In order to eliminate the consequences, first the causes must be eliminated, and the two countries in conflict must explore the positions, bring them closer, by simultaneous discussions or dialogue with each Arab country; pace can be negotiated, directly or freely, between the interested parties.

The cease fire must be replaced by peace treaties and not by truce. If Egypt and other Arab countries wish for peace, they should also declare it by

negotiations, in order for the problems to be settled in the interest of all people in the region.

222

Although it is not easy, the Arab countries must do something, they must change their old traditional policy, which is intransigent towards Israel.

The Israeli government will draft peace proposals, closely following at the same time the events unfolding in the Arab world, in order to determine more realist positions, even in incipient state, for the purposes of using them for replacing the cease fire with peace.

If any friend country, mentioned Abba Eban, can distinguish new elements, realist points amongst the Arab countries, it might help, and Israel is ready to hear them out and act for their capitalization.

He was informed by Goldberg (U.S.A.) that, following the discussions with Gromyko at the U.N., the U.S.S.R. is trying to convince the Arab countries to abandon the idea of destroying Israel.

He doesn’t know if they are willing to accept this, although some moderation can be noticed.

He expressed his wish to stay in contact with us and, if we were to have some encouraging news, he would be very pleased, being prepared at any time to receive them.


145


REGARDING THE CONDITIONS FOR THE ADOPTION BY THE STATE OF ISRAEL OF A PEACE PROGRAM WITH THE ARA B STATES

No. 85 254 August 9, 1967, Tel Aviv, 21.00 h Top Secret. Urgent From the discussions with the leaders of the political parties MAPAI, MAPAM, the

Israeli Communist Party – Mikunis and Vilner [Wilner], religious, with certain members of the government, it resulted that Israel failed to adopt a peace program until the current time with the Arab countries and for the settlement of the issue concerning the Palestinian refugees.

Only a few principled positions were approved, namely: a. Israel will stay in the occupied regions until the Arab countries start discussing peace

and that the retreat of the military forces from these territories will be decided on through direct negotiations with these countries.

The cease fire will have to be replaced only by a peace treaty, which will ensure Israel’s safety, free navigation through the Tiran Straits and Suez Canal and under no circumstances through truce agreements.

b. The issue concerning the refugees should be settled prior to signing peace treaties with the Arab countries.

Drawing those refugees which have a profession in the business circuit, the colonization of others into agricultural farms on an experimental basis. The funds must be ensured within the international framework, with regional contributions.

c. The unifying of Jerusalem, as a unique, historical and national centre of Israel1).

1) On July 4, 1967, the U.N. General Assembly voted a resolution which was against the changing of the Jerusalem state (transfer of the Arab part of the town under Israeli administration). On June 28, 1967, Israel declared the “administrative unification” of Jerusalem, revealing that it opposes “the internationalization of the

223

The three governmental commissions for studies and proposals, established at the end of June current year, for the signing of the peace treaty, border-related and territorial issues of Palestinian refugees, have brought the projects to their final stage and, in a few days, the conclusions will be presented to the Commission for foreign affairs and safety of the Knesset, and are to be discussed in the near future in the government.

Alongside with the principled positions shown above, which were unanimously adopted by the government, currently, there are differences of opinion amongst its members, as follows: L. Eshkol, Abba Eban, Sapir, ministers of MAPAM, of the Independent and Religious Party represent the more moderate wing and are prepared to withdraw the Israeli troops from the occupied territories, in exchange of the right to navigation, the acknowledgment as a state and the concluding of the peace treaty.

Moshe Dayan, minister of Defence, and Ben Gurion support the autonomy and independence of the occupied Arab regions, under the aegis of the Israeli State.

Begin and Yigal Allon represent the most extremist current, which is in favour of keeping all territories occupied and organically integrating them into the Israeli State.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


146


REGARDING THE ECHOES OF PRESIDENT TITO’S VISIT TO I SRAEL IN THE ARAB STATES

No. 85 257 August 11, 1967, Tel Aviv, 15.00 h Top Secret. Urgent Tito’s visit to Cairo1) sparked interest in the political and diplomatic circles and that of

the Israeli ministries and is commented as follows: Pessimism is expressed in relation to Tito’s initiative regarding the acceptance by

Egypt and Israel of its plan of compromising in order to settle the conflict in the Near East2). The official Israeli circles, although not ruling against such initiative, are reserved,

emphasizing the fact that Tito3) cannot be objective as to this conflict, given the close relations of friendship with Nasser and [Yugoslavia’s] interest in the Arab countries.

town”. U.S.A. had already warned Israel that they will refuse to acknowledge the action taken in relation to the change of the Jerusalem state. 1) Reference to the diplomatic tour of President Iosip Broz Tito between August 10-17, 1967 in U.A.R., Syria and Iraq. 2) President Tito made a series of proposals for the peaceful settlement of the conflict, based on the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occupied Arab territories, the ceasing of the belligerent state between the Arab countries and Israel, the free movement on the Suez Channel and the Akaba Gulf. Israel rejected such proposals in September 1967. 3) Iosip Broz Tito (1892-1980), Yugoslavian Marshal and politician, member of the C.C. (1934) and Secretary General of the Yugoslavian C.P. (since 1937), then President of the Yugoslavian Communist Union (1970). Prime-Minister (Nov. 30, 1949-Jun. 30, 1953). President of F.S.R of Yugoslavia (Jan. 14, 1953-May 4, 1980).

224

The existence of a tacit agreement between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. concerning the Middle East is not excluded, agreement in respect to which Tito was informed prior to his visit to the Arab countries.

The French ambassador told me that such tacit agreement between these two great powers was confirmed by its homeland, as well as the contact currently maintained in relation to this problem at New York. It is not excluded that Tito’s presence in Cairo may have a positive influence on Nasser and other Egyptian political circles in the realist assessment of the new political situation created after the war and in the stimulation of the Israel “de facto” acknowledgement process in the near future.

The statements made by L. Eshkol and Abba Eban in Jerusalem on August 9, current

year, as well as the so-called unofficial position expressed by M. Dayan, within the meeting of the activists of the Rafi party, on August 10, current year, in Tel Aviv, which gathered over 4,000 citizens, according to which Israel is ready to hold direct peace negotiations with the Arab countries and that it will not withdraw under any circumstances its troops from the occupied territories before reaching lasting peace, are deemed as a reassertion of the Israeli position in relation to the compromise plan which Tito intends to present to the Arab countries.

The office deems that, although Israel did not declare itself against Tito and his plan

related to the Middle East, it will not accept at this time any compromise for the freeing of the occupied territories, until the Arab countries will start the negotiations for a peace treaty with Israel and until it will be assured by the Great Powers that they will support its enforcement.

Lately, we have been noticing an increase in the firmness and intransigency of Israel’s position, following the direct support received from the U.S.A. and the results of the works of the U.N. session, which encouraged Israel and, as it is asserted, have equally contemplated Israel and the Arab countries.

We believe that Israel’s current firm and intransigent position will be maintained until the commencement of negotiations for peace with the Arab countries, where the finding of acceptable solutions and even compromise will be possible.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


147


IN TEL AVIV, WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AF FAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE POSITION OF ROMA NIA AND OF

THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST No. 1 474 August [14], 1967, Tel Aviv Top secret

On August 4, at 10:00 a.m., upon request, I was received by Abba Eban, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Israel1).

1) See also telegram no. 85 247 of August 5, 1967, 12:00 a.m., AMFA, Telegram matter. Tel Aviv, vol. 2/1967, f. 8-10 (doc. no. 144).

225

Ionescu Neagu, Second Secretary with the Legation in Tel Aviv, and Eliezer Palmor, an MFA official, Division of Relations for Eastern Europe, also attended the reception.

I was received 20 minutes after the appointed hour. Abba Eban had a kind and accommodating behaviour, attentively listened to the report

on the works of the session of The Grand National Assembly concerning the activity carried out by the [communist] party and by the government of S.R. of Romania in the field of international relations, their position in the main issues of contemporary international life and the decision taken.

After that presentation, Abba Eban stated he was aware of the guiding principles of the S.R.R. policy. This is a lucid, clear, honest, well-inspired policy, which has many items in common with the policy of Israel. Israel is a small state, for which sovereignty is crucial and shows the same love for peace and fight for independence. Few nations have suffered as Israel and Romania have, hence the longing for sovereignty, independence, non-intervention in the internal affairs, and the need to solve their own matters in litigation without any foreign interventions. The Great Powers do not have the right to impose their opinions on small and medium-sized countries. Those countries are entitled to their own foreign policy. Romania, which has succeeded by a just policy to maintain relations with all countries, either socialist or non-socialist, is an example to be followed. He has great appreciation for the policy of Romania, has read and attentively followed the speech of Comrade Secretary-General of the Romanian Communist Party Nicolae Ceausescu, has attentively followed the speech of Comrade I. Gh. Maurer to the UN2), and will also study with great attention all the materials drawn up with the occasion of discussing the Romanian foreign policy within The Grand National Assembly of Romania.

Passing to the issues of the Middle East, Abba Eban said: The war has started because many countries, and especially the Arab countries, have failed to observe and apply the decisions of the UN Charter concerning Israel. He made a short history of the events preceding the war, out of which it resulted that Israel was surrounded, threatened and blocked. That is the true cause of war. Of course, historians will find other causes, as well.

In the context of a continuous tension, of permanent threats, Israel can no longer survive, it is a miracle that it was able to live several years in a relative calm and quiet.

Summarizing the Israeli policy, Abba Eban concluded that Israel can go on living in that situation, as it has lived for 20 years. Its people are willing to lead that life as long as the Egypt and the Arab countries do not change their attitude towards Israel.

The Arab countries launched a mortal attack on Israel. They chased away the international troops, closed the Gulf of Aqaba, and did not allow the crossing of the Suez Canal by Israeli ships. Nasser sent 900 armoured cars and 90,000 soldiers to the Israeli border. On May 23, he threatened with his military force. He challenged a policy of confrontation of blocks. He did that supported by Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq, but especially based on the aid from the U.S.S.R., which encouraged the outbreak of war. The Arabs, led by Nasser, as well as U.S.S.R. have underestimated the Israeli military forces.

The war between the Arab countries and Israel was a catastrophe involving the entire mankind. Israel was obsessed with that catastrophe more than with victory. For Israel, the day of June 5 is a nightmare, an obsession, a dangerous date, the most sombre date – we don’t even want to speak of it.

We are avoiding that date, Abba Eban said. Israel’s principles and plan in the matter of the Middle East have been discussed by the U.N., which gave equal weight to the Arabs and to Israel. U.N. refused to separate the issues. This is why they also connect the withdrawal of

2) See note 1 to doc. no. 140.

226

the Israeli troops from the occupied territories to discussions and to the conclusion of peace treaties with each and every Arab state. The simple withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories doesn’t change the attitude of the Arabs toward Israel. As long as nothing changes in the legal, political, moral and mental attitude of the Arab countries toward Israel, the situation in the Middle East will not change.

The cease-fire can only be obtained by peace, which has to be negotiated. Negotiations must not end in a truce or other intermediate forms, but in the conclusion of peace, in the establishment of borders, in ensuring the security of each state in the region.

Israel has also tried intermediate paths, but after 20 years it reached the conviction that they did not have any results.

By arranging a peace based on cooperation, on mutual understanding, on bilateral proposals, we can eliminate the causes which have been generating the war between Israel and the Arab countries. By eliminating the causes, the consequences will also disappear. If there is a war between Egypt and Israel, then there is one between Israel and Egypt too. Israel has no interest in maintaining the Sinai occupied by military forces; Israel wants to demilitarize Sinai, wants peace and free navigation through Suez and Tiran.

All those territorial issues have to be discussed and settled through an agreement. However, Israel shouldn’t be the only showing signs of understanding; the same must be

asked of the Arabs. Israel is searching for and analyzing ideas, and tries to propose to the Arab countries solutions as realistic as possible. Peace and security, even if they have territorial implications, must be discussed.

We will try to elaborate realistic peace proposals for each Arab state. We have been exploring the Arabs, through the means available to us, in order to know what they want. If they want secret parleys, we are willing to talk to them. If another country can identify with the Arabs issues that can be of help to us, which can be discussed with the Arabs, we are ready to receive them at any time.

Arab governments must be encouraged to replace the cease-fire with peace. Romania, which maintains relations with the Arab countries, can do that. He regrets that the other socialist countries broke their diplomatic relations with Israel. Having diplomatic relations or contacts doesn’t mean there are no divergences. Abba Eban believes that the relations with the socialist countries will be resumed.

Goldberg, the U.S. representative with the U.N., told them that the Soviet attitude toward Israel will change and that Gromyko told Goldberg that the Russians will influence the Arab countries to abandon the idea of destroying Israel.

He stated that Israel will continue to search for ways to regulate the peace in the area, while waiting for the decisions of the conference of the ministers of Arab countries in Khartoum3) and possibly those of the conference of the Heads of State of the Arab countries. Until then, the Israelis will maintain their current positions.

3) From August 1 to August 4, 1967, there was a meeting in Khartoum between the ministers of Foreign Affairs from 13 Arab countries (Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, U.A.R. and Yemen), agreeing on an Arab summit, without reaching a consensus on a common Arab strategy and a single position concerning oil supplies to Western countries. The summit of the 13 states was also held in Khartoum, from August 29 to September 1, 1967, and was not attended by the Algerian, Syrian and Tunisian presidents. The conference was also boycotted by the President of the Executive Committee of PLO, because it did not discuss the Palestinian issue in the terms requested by the PLO. The conference adopted a resolution showing that the signatory countries undertook to join their diplomatic effort with a view to “eliminating the consequences of the Israeli aggression” and to ensure “the withdrawal of the aggressing forces from Arab lands”, while refusing “peace with Israel, negotiations with Israel and the recognition of Israel”. They decided to create an Arab fund of $ 400,000,000 for the economic aid toward the countries affected by the war (U.A.R. and Jordan) and the oil supplies to Western countries were left at the discretion of each state.

227

There is a certain tendency for moderation of the Arabs, Abba Eban said. He asks us to maintain the connection with the Arab governments and to recommend them to change their attitude toward Israel.

After having thanked once more for the presentation which was delivered to him and for the received materials, Abba Eban sent wishes of good health to Comrade Prime-Minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer and to Comrade Corneliu Mănescu.

The audience lasted 1 hour and five minutes.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20F/1967, f. 135-138.

148


IN TEL AVIV, WITH GOLDA MEIR, GENERAL SECRETARY OF MAPAI, REGARDING THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 1 476 August [14], 1967, Tel Aviv Top secret On August 9, current year, during the meeting with Golda Meir, Secretary General, at

the main office of the MAPAI Party in Tel Aviv, I informed her on the works of the recent session of Ministry of National Defence of July 24-26, current year, debating on the foreign policy actions of the [communist] party and the government, and I explained to her the positions taken on the main contemporary international events.

Comrade Curavale Dumitru, Third Secretary, was present during the discussion, translating from English.

Thanking me for the reporting, she esteemed as particularly important and valuable our

position on the conflict in the Near East. She mentioned that only a country such as Romania, which doesn’t hold special interests in that region, whose position is inspired from the contemporary reality, can and will effectively contribute to solving the serious current conflicts and to the conclusion of a peace treaty with the participation of the directly concerned countries.

The British dominion on Palestine has left unsolved issues, which remained as such up to this very day.

UN, in 1948, decided to create a small country for the Jews who survived the Nazi pogroms. Although having a small surface and unproductive lands, desert and a difficult climate, the Jewish population has accepted it only to know that they have a country of their own.

Immediately after the creation of that state, the Arabs have started to attack it, to destroy it, not to recognize its existence, and the following events, up to the present, as a consequence of that attitude, only got more complicated.

The regions of Gaza and The West Bank were not included in the State of Israel, nor in Egypt or Jordan; they were conquered during the war of 1956 by the two countries.

From the first days of creation of the State of Israel, we have always declared that we want to live in peace with the Arab countries that we don’t want to interfere with their businesses, that we want economic cooperation with our neighbours, in order to make the region flourish and in the interest of those peoples.

228

We have supported the U.N. peace actions and we have done everything to live in peace with the Arab countries.

We have been preoccupied with the internal issues of the Hebrew state, with organizing kibbutzim, moshavim, with creating jobs for the immigrants and fertilizing the arid lands in the Negev desert.

For 10 years, as a Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have carried out an extensive activity and prepared everything for the discussions with the representatives of the Arab countries.

I agreed to meet with their representatives anywhere and at any time. We have been permanently rejected; we were answered with brutality and enmity: the Jews are not entitled to have a country of their own, they shouldn’t exist, they are to be destroyed and thrown into the sea.

We’ve never had any intention of territorial expansion; we have land and desert that we’ve learned to work and where we can colonize the Jews. For 20 years, we have led 3 wars. We have withstood border clashes and the terrorist actions of “Al-Fatah”. In the current war, for the proportions of a small people such as Israel, the losses of people and the material damage are extremely large. Almost each kibbutz had 5-6 victims from among its members.

We have recently proposed a prisoner exchange to Egypt, but we were rejected. We are willing to trade a larger number of the Egyptian prisoners taken by us for the 16 Israeli soldiers who are prisoners in Egypt. That initiative was also rejected.

It is more and more difficult for Israel to feed those prisoners, taking into account the limited possibilities of our economy.

Nasser’s actions to concentrate troops at the Israeli border, his threats with war and liquidation of the state, as well as the blocking of the Tiran straight, have caused the war to start, and Israel was forced to use its own forces and resources in order to defend its existence and national identity.

They praise the victories conquered in war by the small Israeli people; they speak of the use of a so-called secret weapon.

The truth is that Israel had only one solution: to fight and die on the front or to be thrown into the sea and exterminated by the Arab countries through a new pogrom.

Peace can only be achieved through the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories. The Arab countries must use the peace, get round the table, and the directly concerned countries must find solutions to all the issues in litigation.

If we were to ask, in our capacity as political leaders, to the Israeli population to withdraw our troops, they would answer to us unanimously: give us weapons, we will go back to the front to defend ourselves. The current situation in the Arab countries makes Israel’s [position] much more difficult.

After the cease-fire in June, the Arab countries are preparing for war again. They don’t show any signs of realism; in order to get to direct discussions, they should recognize the state of Israel, and give it the possibility to have security behind the already-established borders.

The issue of peace does not only concern Israel, but the entire region. All the peoples should take interest in it.

The only solution for solving the conflict in the Near East is for the Arab countries to get round the negotiation table, and to solve all the issues through discussions.

The policy of the government of the S.R. of Romania can contribute to establishing the peace in that region.

Its position and the fact that the African countries did not vote with Nasser have saved the peace and consolidated our hopes for achieving it.

The Romanian government, maintaining good relations with the Arab countries and with Israel, can continue, starting from the fact that it doesn’t hold special interests in that region,

229

to contribute to determining the two parties to explore their positions and to ensure the necessary element for direct contacts; and by negotiations, solutions can be found.

The Arab countries must soften their position, their intransigent attitude toward Israel, must recognize it and allow it to exist next to the other states in the region.

The issue of peace is at the same time in the hand of the Great Powers. It is a mistake to believe that the peace can be achieved only by Israel and the Arab countries.

When the Great Powers will establish and coordinate their points of view on the Near East, they will succeed in making the Arab countries understand the need to sign a peace treaty with Israel and, by that, to create an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation between all the countries in that region.

Israel is always ready and prepared to meet with the Arab countries or with each of them separately in order to discuss any issues and find solutions that are satisfying for the parties directly concerned.

The discussion lasted 1 hour and 30 minutes.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20F/1967, f. 142-145.

149


THE SITUATION IN THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY

No. 85 266 August 21, 1967, Tel Aviv, 7.00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent The armed Israeli-Arab conflict of June 1967 led to the increasing worsening of the ties

between the two sub-factions in the Israeli Communist Party. The Vilner-Tubi sub-faction, the only political organization to label Israel as aggressor

and demand the unconditioned withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occupied territories, knows a decrease in approval rate of the public opinion.

Jewish party members belonging to this sub-faction left the party, without adhering however to the Mikunis sub-faction.

The Arabs support the Vilner sub-faction. This sub-faction’s party activists were arrested, while others were forbidden by Israeli legal authorities to leave their residences or their respective neighbourhoods. The Arabs see in these measures a continuation of Eshkol government’s discrimination policies, which is why they support the Vilner sub-faction.

The entire press in Israel harshly criticized the position adopted by the Vilner-Tubi sub-faction on the recent events, asserting occasionally that such attitude toward Israel have only the Communist parties in the Arab countries, only the enemies of Israel.

In the party’s press and in Knesset, representatives Vilner and Tubi openly condemned the Mikunis-Sneh sub-faction, accusing it of deviationism and the total support of the political line of the Israeli government.

The visits in June 1967 of Vilner and Tubi to Moscow and [David] Sasha Henin, member of the Political Bureau, to the Democratic Republic of Germany, Hungary and the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, on their invitation, had as objective the mutual information and determination of a common position on the events in the Near East, as well as gaining their sympathy and support to the detriment of the Mikunis sub-faction, which has

230

been lately increasingly criticized especially by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Mikunis-Sneh sub-faction knows an increase in popularity and sympathy among Jews.

Its position on the recent conflict was object of the positive appreciation not only by the press circles, but also by some Ministers-Representatives in the Parliament, who extolled the “principle and courage to tell the truth”.

Within this sub-faction, however, some diverging opinions appeared on the matter of fuelling the polemics with the C.P.S.U. Three members of the Central Committee left the Maki sub-faction. The leaders of the Mikunis-Sneh sub-faction assert that the three C.C. members who left the party were under the influence of the C.P.S.U. and the Bulgarian Communist Party.

In Knesset, Representative Mikunis retorted “vigorously” to criticism voiced by Vilner, accusing him of “having nothing in common with communism,” and to the accusations made recently by the C.P.S.U., the C.C. of the Mikunis sub-faction expressed his position through a communiqué clearing its attitude in different stages of the Israeli-Arab conflict, as well as the reply to the “unprincipled” position of the C.P.S.U.

About the above-mentioned, the office estimates that: 1. The open polemic between the two sub-factions is detrimental to the working class in

Israel. The right wing political sub-factions take advantage of it, in their attempt to rise. 2. The polemic between the two sub-factions of the Israeli Communist Party sharpened

even more as a result of the Israeli-Arab conflict. 3. The perspective of unification is even more remote, and the common grounds of the

ideology have almost faded out. 4. Those that left the Mikunis sub-faction did not create a new sub-faction, as it was

initially anticipated. 5. The sympathy to the Mikunis sub-faction is fictitious; it did not result in the increase

in numbers of the party members. We believe to have responded to the issued raised by your address no. 05/003117. In case we did not, please specify what else must be done, and we will do it, so that we

respond on time. (Ss) N. Ionescu


150

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF ROMANIA, ON THE ESCALATION OF VIOLENT PALESTINIA N ACTIONS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES AND IN ISRAEL

No. 85 298 October 16, 1967, Tel Aviv, 7. 00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent On the eve of the opening of the U.N. session proceedings, and especially over the past

weeks, an intensifying of discontent actions among the Arab population in the territories occupied by the Israeli troops was noted, as well as a growing in number and size of the sabotage and terror acts carried out by the “Al Fatah” organization on Israeli territory.

The discontent displays of the Arab citizens resulted in staging strikes, disobedience to the orders of the Israeli military administration, occurring as follows: the general strike of the merchants, taxi drivers and teachers in Jerusalem, from the Jordan River region, the Golan

231

(Syria) Plateau; the refusal of the clerks to appear in the mayor’s offices or other state institutions, to cooperate with the military administration; the strike of the lawyers and judges; non allowing children to go to school.

Simultaneously, the size and intensity of the “Al Fatah” terrorist actions is noticeable not only in the occupied territories, but also in some Israeli cities like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. In the kibbutzim near Jordanian and Syrian territory, on the main roads, railroads, in theatres and during meetings mines and bombs went off, causing material damages and the loss of human lives. Recently, the Israeli police discovered a large network of “Al Fatah” terrorists in Jerusalem, and important quantities of ammunition, and explosive materials stored both in some buildings and in safe houses outside the city. It is said that many of these materials are of Chinese and Soviet origin, while others are from the Syrian Army’s supplies.

Considering that the sabotage actions of the terrorist have been, and are being, supported by the Arab population in the occupied territories, the security agencies and the Israeli police were strengthened, while the prosecution and reprisal measures have been intensified, proceeding to punish by blowing up the houses where armament has been found, by shooting of a number of Arab citizens equal to that of the victims among the Jewish population, who died as a result of terrorist actions, by prolonging the curfew, by interrupting the traffic in the streets, and so on.

The roughening, on the Israeli side, of penalty and coercion provisions in the occupied territories has led to a certain worsening of the climate, to bloody clashed, especially in Jordanian Jerusalem and the Golan Plateau. At present, the Israeli government forbade the shooting of Arab citizens without previous trial, and the Minister of Police, Sasson1, demanded, in the order issued on October 14, current year, that the Israeli law enforcement agencies act calmly, keep vengeance and fury feelings in check, fortify in the rural settlements and in cities, appealing at the same time to the population to show vigilance, by announcing the authorities of any suspect action.

As a result of the arrest of some Arab terrorist organization leaders, the Israeli authorities declared they were in possession of some documents which show that the preparation and organization of these groups and the inciting of the population in the occupied territories are being done also with the consent of the Syrian government, and the infiltration of saboteurs is achieved through Jordan. Recently, the Minister of Labour, Y. Allon2 and M. Dayan, Minister of the Armed Forces, declared: “Guerrilla struggles will be considered by us war, we take and will take all provisions to end this kind of war, whether we shall be forced to hit the terrorists or those who send them. Jordan River will not constitute a barrier against chasing those in the territories of the neighbouring countries”.

The office estimates that it would be possible that the Israeli government advert the Security Council in advance to the exacerbation of terrorist actions, and we do not exclude the possibility, in case these actions continue to surge, reprisals against Jordan and Syria may be taken.


1 Eliyahu (Elian) Sasson (1902-1978), Israeli politician and diplomat. Former Director of the Division for Arab Affairs in the Jewish Agency (1932-1947); head of the Middle East Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1948-1950); Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Ankara (1950-1952), in Rome (1953), in Bern (1961). Minister of Post (1961-1966), of Police (since 1967). Member of the Israeli delegation at the armistice negotiations with Egypt (1948-1949), at the Conference in Lausanne (1949). 2 Yigal Allon elaborated immediately after the war in June 1967, the so-called “Allon Plan”, based on the idea that Israel must assure its security by the creation of Jewish settlements in some of the occupied territories. The envisioned measures were taking into account keeping Jordan River as border between Israel and Jordan, with the entire fertile valley along Jordan, which is expected to be controlled by the Israeli army. In the Arab territories Israel would have withdrawn from, military forces of the Arab states were not allowed to enter.

232

151


REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI POLITICAL GR OUPS TOWARDS THE RECENTLY OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

No. 85317 October 31, 1967, Tel Aviv, 7.00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent In connection with the occupied territories, the Israeli government hasn’t yet adopted a

unitary position, a plan regarding their future. From the recently introduced Israeli official data it results that following the 6-day war,

a 70,000 km2 territory was occupied, inhabited by approximately 1 million Arabs, of whom 90% can be found in the territories of the former Palestine.

To those we can add the 69,000 in the Jordanian Jerusalem. From the discussions with some members of the government and of the commissions for

security and foreign relations of the Knesset, and with leaders of political parties, it resulted that the misunderstandings within the government have grown bigger, thus, there are various attitudes concerning those territories, materialized in three positions, namely;

a) The more moderate current, led by L. Eshkol, Abba Eban and Sapir, representatives of the MAPAM Party, religious leaders and independents, who, in the conditions of direct negotiations and of a peace treaty, are in favour of giving Sinai to Egypt, in exchange for the free passage through the Suez Canal and the Tiran straight; also, in favour of giving the Golan plateau to the Syrians, with some border rectifications, its demilitarization on several square kilometres and solving the use of the affluents of the Jordan River, inspired by Johnson’s proposal. Jordan would receive the territory on the bank of the Jordan River, the exit to the Mediterranean Sea, the Haifa or Ashdod Port, in order to cooperate to the mutual exploitation of the riches in the Mediterranean.

Supporting the theory that Gaza has never belonged to Egypt, they are against giving it up to the U.A.R.

Through negotiations, the statute of Gaza could be established or it might be connected through a corridor to the territories alongside the Jordan River.

b) The annexationist-extremist current, led by Begin (Herut), Yigal Allon (Ahdut Haavoda) consistently supports the preservation of all the occupied territories and their incorporation within the Israeli state.

Not too long ago, the two ministers said that, if any of the occupied territories were given away, they would deem this an act of national treason and they will leave the government, causing a political crisis.

c) The current of the military circles and of part of the MAPAI Party, led by Moshe Dayan, lately supports the conditioned liberation of Sinai and of the Golan Plateau, but fight the idea of giving away the territories along the Jordan River, asking the creation of an autonomous region within the State of Israel, formed of those territories and of the Gaza region.

Mention should be made that Moshe Dayan declared in the government, in connection to the borders: “The current borders are the most ideal possible, but this doesn’t mean they are real” .

(Ss) V. Georgescu


233

152


THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRISES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

No. 85 368 December 5, 1967, Tel Aviv, 8.00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent From the discussions between the undersigned and the members of the Israeli

government on December 4, 1967, concerning the Middle East crisis, the position of Israel regarding the crisis and the position of the Arab countries, we inform you of the following:

Israel will continue to insist on bilateral discussions. The coalition government presided by Levy Eshkol is firm about not withdrawing the army from the occupied territories until the Arab representatives accept the discussions with the representatives of Israel. The withdrawal of troops will be done concomitantly with the talks between the parties and with establishing the borders between Israel and the Arab countries, and not before.

Borders will be mutually established following those talks. The discussions are also the means to find flexible solutions for the future of the Gaza province. As to Sinai and the West Bank, they will be given back to Egypt and Jordan, after the parties to the discussions will accept the controlled demilitarization, and after having ensured the circulation of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal, the Tiran straight and the Gulf of Aqaba.

The Israeli position cannot be any different as long as the Arab countries threaten Israel, as long as Nasser and other Arab leaders publicly declare that they will not recognize Israel, will not talk to the Israeli leaders, and will not allow the passage of Israeli ships through the Suez Canal1).

Abba Eban, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, added: “Despite all the efforts made by statesmen like Mr. Corneliu Mănescu2), for whom both I and the Israeli government have great respect, and all the efforts made by realistic governments, such as the Romanian government, to which Israel owes much, progresses cannot be made in solving the Middle East crisis”. If during the next summit the Arabs would adopt the same attitude as during the conference in Khartoum, Israel will be forced to get used to the situation created after the 6-day war. In order not to be caught uncovered, the state consolidates the positions won, fortifies itself and prepares to face the current situation. Abba Eban continued, however, that they hope the Arab states would be advised by their advisers to give up their tough position up to the present.

At that remark, Barzilai, the Minister of Health, added: “I believe that the USSR has learned during the past 6 months to appreciate better, and with more realism, the Israeli military potential, and will no longer recommend the Arab countries to attack Israel”.

The hope of the Russians and of other people that the Israeli government will not be united in their internal and international actions is not founded. Even if between Abba Eban and Moshe Dayan there are sometimes divergences of opinions on some matters, they are

1) From October 21 to November 21, 1967, serious Israeli-Egyptian armed incidents occurred. The Israeli aviation destroyed on October 24 the largest part of the installations of the Suez Port, following the sinking (on October 21) by Egyptian torpedoes of the “Eylath” Israeli destroyer. The UN Security Council convened in an emergency session on October 24, 1967, adopting a resolution in which it condemned the attack and requested for the cease-fire to be observed. 2) On September 19, 1967, Corneliu Mănescu, Romania’s Foreign Minister, was elected President of the 22nd Session of the UN General Assembly, being the first representative of a socialist country who was entrusted with such a mission.

234

united when the fate of Israel is at stake. They should know that Dayan does not have the intention of keeping the conquered territories, but if the Arabs are forcing him to, what can he do? What can Abba Eban do?

Those completions brought by David Hacoen [Hakohen, 1898-1984], president of the Commission for Security and Foreign Relations in Knesset, made Abba Eban smile and approve the affirmations above.

Outside that discussion, in which the above-mentioned participated, Abba Eban wanted to discuss with the undersigned alone, stating: “I bring my salute to your Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Corneliu Mănescu, and to his deputy, Mr. Maliţa. Their work with the UN was successful, and the Security Council was able to adopt its well-known resolution that we agree with and we will support Mr. Jarring3) in his mission4), in the spirit of what we have discussed with his Excellency, Mr. Mănescu, at the U.N. The Israeli government is grateful to the Romanian government for its support. No Israeli will forget that support”.

The discussion with the above-mentioned took place at the reception given by the ambassador of Central Africa at his residence in Jerusalem, on December 4, 1967.

(Ss) N. Ionescu


153

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRE BURL ACU,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE ECONOMIC COOPERATION WITH ISRAEL

No. 85 368 December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv, 11.00 a.m. Top secret. Urgent On the evening of December 18, the current year, in Jerusalem, in the building of the

Knesset, a dinner party was given in the honour of the Romanian economic delegation. The Minister of Industry and Commerce, Zeev Sharef1), in his toast, said among others

that, after the signing of the economic and payment agreement in April, the current year, we

3) Gunnar Jarring (born in 1907), Swedish professor and diplomat. Specialist in Turkic languages, a professor of Lund University (1933-1940). Attaché in Ankara (from 1940) and Teheran (from 1941); chargé d’affaires a.i. in Teheran and Baghdad (1945-1946), in Addis Ababa (1946-1948); envoy extraordinary and plenipotentiary minister in New Delhi (1948-1951) and in Ceylon (1950-1951), in Teheran, Baghdad and Karachi (1951-1952); director of the Political Division of MFA (1953-1956), permanent representative with the UN (from 1956) and Ulan-Bator (1965-1967). Appointed special representative of the UN Secretary General to the Near East (1967-1974). 4) On November 22, 1967, UN Security Council adopted in unanimity Resolution 242, proposed by UK, on the matter of the Near East. The resolution affirmed the need for the withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the territories occupied during the conflict of June 1967, in order to ensure a just and durable peace; the cessation of all claims and of the state of war; the need to guarantee the maritime freedom of navigation in the international maritime ways from the region; the just regulation of the refugee issue. The UN Secretary-General was asked to appoint a special representative with a view to establishing contacts between the countries from that region. On November 23, U. Thant appointed as special representative for the Near East, Gunnar Jarring, who, from December 13 to December 26, 1967, would visit Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and the U.A.R. 1) Ze’ev Sharef (Sherf, 1906-1984), Israeli politician. Born in Cernăuţi. Government Secretary (1948-1954). Minister of Industry and Industry (1966-1969), of Finance (1968-1969) and of Housing (1968-1974).

235

have gone a long way, that this week we have made a great step forward, which will contribute even more to the progress of the economic relations in the following year, to the growth of commercial exchanges and to a closer, long-term economic and scientific multilateral cooperation.

The fine atmosphere and the mutual understanding which have prevailed during the talks between the members of the two delegations prove once more the respect and mutual appreciation of our countries’ representatives.

Those are precisely the factors which, above all, ensure the entire success of the application of the concluded agreements, which will not be too easy to do taking into account the increases provided for and the firm commitments taken.

The Israeli party will make great efforts and take urgent measures in order to accomplish them as quick as possible and in the best conditions possible. The air agreement that will be signed will form a bridge and a solid, perspective basis for the development of tourism to the advantage of both parties. They expressed their hope that the cooperation in the field of agriculture and especially of irrigations and animal breeding, although has made progresses, will become even more solid in the following period.

In his answer, in short, Minister Gheorghe Cioară underlined the principles based on which our country maintains and develops economic and cooperation relations with all the states of the world, and that the development of those relations in the future involves mutual benefits for both countries, and wished good luck and prosperity to the Israeli government.


154

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO IL IE VERDEŢ, FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, ON

THE FIRST MEETING OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI JOINT COM MISSION

No. 85370 December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv, 12.00 a.m. Top secret. Post-haste This day, December 19, the current year1), the talks of the first session of the Joint

Romanian and Israeli Commission are to be concluded. In the afternoon, at Tel Aviv, the protocol recording the provisions agreed upon, as well as the air agreement, will be signed.

In the field of commercial exchanges, two lists of goods were made, both for import and export, with equivalent values and minimal limits in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970, for which the two parties assume firm contracting obligations.

The mandatory nature of importation and exportation is recorded in a confidential letter. It was established that the Israeli mandatory import from Romania will be in 1968 of at least Lei 65 million, of which half will be represented by machines and tools (mainly tractors, lorries and machine tools). The other half is mainly formed of chemical and pharmaceutical products, synthetic rubber, urea and meat.

For the Romanian importation from Israel, we have provided for Leyland buses (made with parts from England), machine tools, cotton, phosphates, and irrigation pipes. For 1968, there will also be an improvement of the East-West relations.

1) The works of the first session of the Joint Romanian and Israeli Governmental Commission for Economic and Technical Cooperation took place in Tel Aviv from December 16 to December 19, 1967.

236

For the years 1969 and 1970, the foreseen growth is of 10%, namely of 15%, so that the volume of commercial exchanges in 1968-1970 will exceed Lei 400 million. At the same time, commercial exchanges will be carried out, as until now, subject to the existing agreement, which however does not provide for firm import obligations.

In connection to the above-mentioned, during the talks, the Israeli party showed reservations about assuming obligations to import machines and tools that they do not know and do not directly need. The entire time, we have emphasized the mutual advantages of those exchanges.

About industrial cooperation, the protocol records the interest and possibilities of producing in Romania certain installations for the manufacture of biodegradable detergents, for meat processing etc.

We have also recorded certain economic targets from other countries Romania and Israel express their desire to cooperate on.

The session protocol and the air agreement will mention, at the proposal of the Israeli party, that they were signed “in Israel” , without mentioning the city.

On the occasion of our visit to Israel, the head of the Romanian delegation was received in a courtesy call to the Prime-Minister, the President of the Parliament and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in Jerusalem.

The delegation will leave Israel tomorrow morning, December 20, 1967.

(Ss) V. Georgescu Gh. Cioară


155


FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ON THE ISRAELI PRESS COV ERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC NEGOTIATIONS

No. 85374 December 21, 1967, Tel Aviv, 7.00 p.m. Top Secret. Urgent During the period in which the Romanian economic delegation conducted negotiations

with Israel, the entire press and the Kol-Israel radio station published information on the conduct of proceedings, without many comments.

The statement of Minister of Industry and Commerce, Z. Sharef, published in the Israeli, English and French language newspapers, saying that the agreements were to be signed in Jerusalem, was the only assertion of speculative nature.

After the delegation departure, on December 20 and 21, current year, the radio station and the entire press showed an obvious increase in information and comments, both in number and space, on the results of talks and the extremely favourable perspectives opening up for the economic exchanges between the two countries.

We point out that the comments published in the “Jerusalem Post”, “ Maariv”, “ Information” and “Viaţa Noastră” consider that the presence in Israel and the development of future relationships between the two countries reflect the position adopted by Romania on the Near East conflict, which did not allow itself to be drawn by the “flood of slanders” that came upon Israel on the part of the other countries of the Soviet Bloc.

237

The “Jerusalem Post”, “ Hatzofe”, “ Lamerhav”, “ Information” qualify as a special event the visit of the economic delegation and the agreement signature, and stress out its political meaning. It is mentioned: “the coincidence between the signature of the cooperation agreement between Israel and Romania and the conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Eastern European countries in Warsaw”; “ the presence of the Romanian representative in Warsaw will help adopt a less tough stance towards Israel”.

Using the positive answer of Comrade Minister, Gheorghe Cioară, to the questions he

was asked on the airport, before his departure, saying that “the economic and commercial agreements strengthen the cultural connections in all regions”, it is assessed that this area also shows a lot of interest for both sides and that they will materialize in the immediate future.

In the press of December 21, current year, in “Maariv”, the following information was

published: “Prime Minister, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, agrees, in principle, to visit Israel in 1968” , information which was also picked up by the newspapers, “Viaţa Noastră” and “ Information” .

I specify that on Lode airport, before the delegation departure, the journalist, G. Keysari from “Maariv” asked me whether the date for the visit of Comrade Ion Gheorghe Maurer to Israel had been set, following the invitation made by Levy Eshkol.

I confirmed that the Israeli Prime Minister had made such an invitation but I knew nothing about it, and its opportunity and date will be established according to the best time for the two countries.

Considering both the importance given in the press and on the radio to the visit of the Romanian delegation and the importance of such speculations, the Office proposes that the press attaché draws attention, within an audience to the M.F.A. Press Directorate, on the speculations noted, to prevent publishing comments that exceed the normal proportions of the relationships between our country and Israel.


156

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINIST RY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE PROGRESS O F

THE BILATERAL ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND ITS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE

No. 88376 December 22, 1967, Tel Aviv, 5.00 p.m. Top Secret. Urgent The discussions of the Head of the Office, and the other diplomats, with the Israeli

government members, Z. Sharef, Shavy Yehouda, with diplomats, David Hakohen and Yisrael Kargman [1906-1987] from the Ministry of Industry and Finance, with the M.F.A. directors and with businessmen mainly resulted in the following comments and estimations on the visit and the results of negotiations of our economic delegation:

The presence of the Romanian economic governmental delegation in Israel goes beyond the economic relationships, being now profoundly politically significant.

238

Although Romania will probably have some difficulties with the Arab and other countries, the arrival of the economic delegation showed once more to the whole world its consistency and principles towards the Near East conflict.

Romania and its leaders succeeded in winning international prestige, it is requested to solve conflicts between states, is the country attracting attention of small- and medium-sized states, with Israel among them.

Taking a realistic approach and developing a policy neutral to the interests of other states, Romania will help achieve peace, progress and prosperity, more than the Great Powers, which will be taken down in history.

During negotiations, Romania proved to be meticulously prepared and capable, Israel learning the meaning of cooperation between states.

In the foreign trade of Israel, the treaties concluded marked a new era, that of long-term treaties, being for the first time when such documents were entered into.

The Deputy Minister of Development, the manager of Blitz, the manager of Weissman Institute and other businessmen expressed their satisfaction and joy of being able to cooperate with Romania in the petrochemical, machines manufacturing, and agricultural field, the experience of which, supplemented by the Israeli relations, will create benefits for both countries and conditions to place new products on other markets.

As for the commitments undertaken by Israel, both Minister Sharef and Chelouche, director of the Economic Division of M.F.A., suggested that placing some tools and machines on the Israeli and other markets might prove at first difficult.

However, they expressed the belief that these difficulties will be overcome both through the measures that will be taken on the domestic level and by using the relations they have in the financial circles abroad, and through close operational contact with Romania.


157


ON THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION TO THE REGIONA L CRISIS AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES

No. 85 378 December 23, 1967, Tel Aviv, 3.00 p.m. Top Secret. Urgent The recent day talks with members of the Israeli government, leaders of political parties

and high officials of M.F.A. revealed that no essential changes have occurred so far in relation to the previous position Knesset expressed and approved in September, current year, regarding the resolution of the conflict with the Arab countries.

a) L. Eshkol and Abba Eban, in their discussions with U Thant’s representative, ambassador G. Jarring, mentioned as a first condition for settling the problems under dispute, the Arab countries’ acceptance of direct talks or, otherwise, the use of the same procedure as in 1949 at Rhodes, when, in the presence of the U.N. representative, the two parties in conflict met and negotiated at the same negotiating table1. 1 On January 6, 1949, the Conciliation Commission created by the U.N. General Assembly (December 11, 1948) obtained the end of hostilities in the Israeli-Egyptian War. On January 7, 1949, U.N. mediator for Palestine, Ralph J. Bunche, announced the beginning of the cease-fire negotiations in the island of Rhodes. After the First Arab-Israeli War, Israel expanded its territory by 40% than it had been allocated by the U.N. partition plan.

239

b) The job of the U.N. representative in the Middle East is considered to be a hard and long one.

During his term of office, more or less violent military conflicts on the Egyptian and Jordanian border are not ruled out.

It is assessed that if the U.N. representative fails, the outbreak of hostilities will become inevitable.

c) The Israeli government adopted, by a majority of votes, a plan of discussions with the Arab countries, back in August, current year (Eshkol, Abba Eban etc., supported by the parties MAPAI, MAPAM, the National Religious Party), regarding the perspective of the occupied territories, the resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem and the economic cooperation, provided peace with the Arab countries was established.

It was unanimously established that the plan would be presented and negotiated only upon direct negotiations with the Arab countries, that the great majority of the occupied territories would be handed over, with some border corrections on the Syrian and Jordanian border, and that they would not abandon the reunited Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The Suez Canal1 problem can be negotiated with Egypt based on the free navigation for Israeli ships on this waterway, before solving the other problems under dispute.

d) The United States directly supports the current position of the Israeli government, as well as the condition of not giving anything up until the Arab countries agree to direct talks.

Lately, it has been noticed, the official and unofficial arrival in Israel of a significant number of VIPs among the members of the U.S. Congress and Department of State, for discussions and mutual consultation on matters such as the conflict, the Israeli economy and the supply of arms (aircrafts, missiles, tanks, etc.) to the Israeli army.

e) The Office is of the opinion that the Israeli government and people wish to settle the problems under dispute with the Arab countries and establish peace in the Near East.

The presence of the U.N. representative in the region will be used to concomitantly apply all the provisions listed in the resolution adopted by the Security Council.

Considering the support of the international Israeli circles, of the U.S. and British governments, of some European and South American countries, Israel will not withdraw its troops until new direct negotiations with the Arab countries are started for complete border security, recognition of its statute and perspective of solving the other problems in the next period.

The defence measures, which are currently undertaken throughout the country and in the occupied territories, show the Israeli government’s serious concern to strengthen and consolidate its military structures in order to answer a potential large-scale armed conflict in the future.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


1 “The Suez Canal Crisis” was approached after the Second Arab-Israeli War, October 29-November 7, 1956. On October 29, 1956, Israel, France and Great Britain attacked Egypt in response to the Egyptian government’s decision to “nationalize” the Suez Canal. The Israeli troops occupied the Sinai Peninsula. As a result of the UN intervention and the USSR and U.S. position, military operations ended and the Israeli troops withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula on the former demarcation line between Egypt and Israel, decided by the 1949 Armistice. To prevent the conflicts between the Egyptian and Israeli troops, Egypt accepted the deployment of UN troops (“UN Peacekeeping Forces”) along the demarcation line (on the Egyptian territory). These UN troops, with the Egypt’s approval, also monitored the free navigation of ships, including the Israeli ones, in the Aqaba Gulf.

240

158

TELEGRAM OF GHEORGHE PELE, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN VIENNA, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREI GN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ABOUT THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE NEW ISRAELI AM BASSADOR

WITH REGARD TO THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL POSITIONS IN THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

No. 91 852 December 29, 1967, Vienna, 6.00 p.m. Top Secret. Post-haste On December 28, 1967, the new Israeli ambassador to Vienna[1967-1971], Zeev Shek

[1920-1978], paid me an introductory visit. The issues discussed included the following: 1. The ambassador expressed his satisfaction with the Romania’s positive contribution

within the recent meeting of the ministers of foreign affairs of the members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization1.

He considered that the issues included in the common statement were largely acceptable for Israel, too.

“The meeting – the ambassador said – represented a serious step back for the U.S.S.R. and other socialist countries, including Yugoslavia, in relation to the Declaration of Moscow in 1967”2.

I answered that our country was consistent in its opinion regarding the situation in the Near East, opinion also expressed in Warsaw.

The ambassador was positive in his assessment of the position adopted by our country at the U.N. for the recognition of the State of Israel, as well as of our policy on the small and medium-sized countries.

He has recently reported me that Chancellor Klaus3) told him that Austria’s position on the Near and Middle East problem was also triggered by the fact that Austria is a small country and one day it might find itself in Israel’s situation,

I asked the ambassador his current opinion on the perspective of solving the problem. He answered that the Israelis do not hate the Arabs, more than that, Israel wishes to get

closer to the Arab people who does not hate the Israelis either. The ones inflaming the situation are the Arab feudal chiefs.

The Arabs on the occupied territories are brought to see how the Arabs live in Israel in kibbutzim. The results of these demonstrations are very positive, the Arabs declaring that they also wish to live a good life and they can see how desserts may be transformed into fertile lands.

The ambassador was pessimistic about the Security Council’s recent resolution4), declaring that he did not see how the application of this resolution was possible in the near future. “If we were to be left alone with the Arabs – without the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and England’s plots – we would reach a settlement faster”, he declared. 1 Reference to the Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, regarding the situation in the Near East, which took place between Dec. 19-21 1967, in the capital of the People’s Republic of Poland. 2 It is about the Declaration of June 9, 1967 of the leaders of the socialist countries, except for Romania, which condemned the “Israeli aggression” and expressed military support and solidarity with the Arab countries. 3) Dr. Josef Klaus (born in 1910), Austrian lawyer and politician. Member of the Peoples Party (P.P.); governor of the Austrian province Salzburg (1949-1961); Minister of Finance (1961-1963). President of P.P. (Sept. 1963). Chancellor (1964-1970). 4) See note 4 to doc. no. 152.

241

The ambassador considered that the Soviet Union made a mistake by breaking diplomatic relations with Israel. “We would like – he said – to explain the problems to the Soviets within a dialog”.

He avoided answering my question related to a previous or future intention of starting such a dialog. He showed that the only progress that could be currently made on the matter of the refugee exchange was with the help of the International Red Cross. Declaring that the Yugoslavian Minister of Foreign Affairs was leaving now to inform Nasser about the discussions in Warsaw, the ambassador spoke hard words against Nasser, and concluded that this was still going to mess things up for a while in the Near East.

Also, a hostile attitude towards Yugoslavia, respectively Tito and Czechoslovakia came out from the way he presented the issues.

AMFA, founds Telegram. Vienna, vol. 5/1967, f. 192-194.

159

TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE VANCEA, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINAR Y AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN HELSINKI, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOR EIGN AFFAIRS

OF ROMANIA ABOUT THE ASSESSMENTS OF THE ISRAELI AMB ASSADOR WITH REGARD TO ROMANIA AND USSR’S POSITIONS IN

THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

No. 61 004 January 9, 1968, Helsinki, 8.00 p.m. Top Secret. Post-haste During a conversation with Israeli ambassador, Avida, on January 9, current year, this

told me that his country appreciated very much Romania’s position at the recent meeting in Warsaw1). Romania had a special contribution at this meeting where the situation in the Near East was brought up to the table. Everybody realizes that only due to the Romania’s position, the common statement could show an obvious change of position in all socialist countries, including the Soviet Union, which stopped condemning Israel as the aggressor. In any case, it is a great success – the interlocutor said.

In my turn, I showed that Romania clearly and openly asserted its position, which did not emanate from contextual situations, but from a firm principled policy line. In addition, the events proved this line was correct, as the Security Council’s Resolution, unanimously adopted, includes many of the ideas stated by Romania before and after the outbreak of the conflict. In any case, Avidan told me that, as far as he knows, there are serious contradictions within the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Lately, a so-called group of “the tough” started to gain ground, with Shelepin at its head2), supported by some VIPs working behind the scenes against the couple Brejnev3) - Kosygin.

1) See note 1 doc. no. 158. 2) Alexander Nikolayevich Shelepin (born in 1918), Soviet politician. Member of the C.C. of C.P.S.U. (1952-1976), of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of C.P.S.U. (Nov. 16, 1964-Apr. 16, 1975). Head of K.G.B. (1958 -1961). Secretary of the C.C. of C.P.S.U. (Oct. 31, 1961-Sept. 26, 1967). Chairman of the C.C. of the Trade Unions of the USSR (1967-1975). 3) Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev (1906-1982), Soviet politician. Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (May 7, 1960-Jul. 15, 1964). Chairman of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of C.P.S.U. (1964 -1966). General Secretary of the C.C. of C.P.S.U. (1966-1982), Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (1977-1982).

242

The group of “the tough” has a more determined attitude in the international problems and, especially, a direct confrontation with the imperialism at international level.

Although this group of “the tough” was put in a minority position, the discussions on the U.S.S.R. actions of external policy revealed that this was still working on to undermine the position of Brezhnev and Kosygin. According to Avidan, one of the reasons that led to the postponement of Brezhnev’s visit to U.A.R. was the actual internal instability within the Political Bureau.

It is more than likely that important events are going to happen soon in the USSR, either by some decisions to be taken or by changes to be made at leadership level.

AMFA, founds Telegram. Helsinki, vol. 1/1968, f. 4-5.

160

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ACTIONS TAKEN FOR SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS AND

THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT

No. 85 022 January 19, 1968, Tel Aviv, 6.00 p.m. Top Secret. Urgent The recent discussions with members of the government ([Rabbi ]Dr. Zerach Warhaftig

[1906-2002] – Cults, Israel Barzilai – Health, S. Shapira – Justice, Zeev Sharef – Commerce) with the leaders of the political parties – MAPAI, MAPAM, Israeli C.P. – on the ways and methods of solving the Near East conflict resulted mainly in:

a) Israel accepts and supports the Security Council’s Resolution, and requests the simultaneous (bundled) application of all its provisions, while being against any other preliminary conditions.

The need for talks and direct negotiations is raised to the level of principle, as the only way possible and acceptable to solve the problems under dispute.

It cooperates with the UN special envoy and supports his mission, insofar as it helps and encourages bringing the parties directly involved in the conflict to the negotiating table.

The UN representative is accepted to be present in the negotiations, which may take place with all Arab countries or separately with each country. The moment for direct negotiations is rather remote, and the current political conditions and the strong differences between the countries in the region are not yet favourable for such meetings.

To open certain perspectives and create a more favourable climate for solving the major fundamental problems of the conflict, Israel accepts and encourages that for starters, through ambassador G. Jarring, some problems of less significance are solved, such as: prisoner exchange, refloating the ships, freight exchange with Jordan, visiting the Holy Places by Muslims, absorption into the economic circuit of a number of Palestinian refugees, etc.

b) It is considered that the opening of the Suez Canal to shipping may be separately solved before other problems of the conflict. The essential condition which Israel seems to hold on to, even if it needs to use its army, is the right to free navigation for its ships on this waterway and through the Straits of Tiran.

The presence of the Israeli troops on the Canal banks is unanimously considered as temporary and these will be withdrawn upon compliance with the requirement above.

243

As refloating the ships is more of a technical and moral matter than a matter of principle, Israel is not against the clearance works, provided it is previously notified by the head of the U.N. observers. By January 17, current year, this requirement had not been met.

Clearing the North or the South is not seen as essential, especially that the great majority of the ships are in the North, and finding a solution to this problem is considered sensitive in the near future.

Opening the Suez Canal to shipping and refloating the ships from the Amer Lake are seen as two distinct and completely different problems.

If Egypt attempts to, while taking the ships out through the North, also open the Canal to shipping, without Israel’s prior agreement, it is not impossible that broader military conflicts break out in this region.

The Office considers that no essential changes have occurred in the Israeli position on the conflict as compared to the Knesset’s Resolution of 1967.

We notice certain positive beginnings regarding some less important matters within the conflict, with the arrival of the UN representative1) in the region.

There is the perspective that, if the current state of belligerency continues, the Israeli annexationist extremist circles gain even more ground in the political and public life.

(Ss) V. Georgescu

AMFA, founds Telegram. Tel Aviv, vol.1/1968, f. 34-36.

161

TELEGRAM OF GHEORGHE PELE, AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY IN VIENNA, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREI GN AFFAIRS

OF ROMANIA ON THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE NEAR EAST

No. 91 049 January 20, 1968, Vienna, 10.00 p.m. Top Secret. Urgent During the introductory visit1), the new Israeli ambassador, Zeev Shek, paid me, he told

me as follows: The Israeli government changed its attitude towards U Thant’s envoy, Jarring, who,

after the explanations received, began to understand Israel’s position. Israel is pleased by the results obtained with Jarring’s help. Thus, he helped to the

exchange of prisoners. Nasser was against it for economic reasons. Israel, on its turn, wanted to get rid of the Arab prisoners.

The Arabs in the West Bank succeeded in creating commercial relationships with the Arabs in Jordan.

Jarring played a positive role in clearing the Suez Canal. Acting with ability, Jarring succeeded in making Nasser clear the Canal, without conditioning this action on prohibiting the navigation for Israel. The issue of Israel’s right to use the Canal would be raised subsequently.

1) From Jan. 7 to Feb. 28 1968, Gunnar Jarring, special envoy of the U.N. Secretariat General to the Middle East, had a round of discussions with officials of the states in the region, proposing U.A.R., Jordan and Israel to start peace negotiations in Cyprus, through him. 1) See doc. no. 157.

244

The Israeli ambassador further showed: “We are intercepting the Arab radiograms and know their actual situation. I have to tell you that the sinking of «Eylath» is because of us and not because of the Arabs. The vessel was shipping in the vicinity of the Arab territorial waters. The head of the secret service of U.A.R. proposed Nasser to attack the vessel, but Nasser was against it, being concerned about the Israel’s measures of retaliation. We intercepted these discussions and, being tempted to continue the interception, I gave the order to keep on patrolling the area. On the third day, on the order of the head of the secret service of U.A.R., the ship was sunk. Subsequently, of course, Nasser also used this opportunity to decorate the ones who took part in the attack.

We realize that the Arabs continue to be led by feelings and not by political reason. We are surprised how Nasser is misled by his own officers. Therefore, we do not exclude the possibility of a new military conflict”.

The Israeli ambassador continued to explain that in Tel Aviv there would be information that the Yugoslavian government regretted its decision of breaking relations with Israel, which led to a fall in the Tito’s prestige in the countries that were not involved, but it also faced serious commercial difficulties. In Israel, the statement of the members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization is seen as a success of the Romanian external policy, but also a manifestation of the public opinion in the other socialist countries.

As for the international effects of the austerity measures of the Unites States, the ambassador showed that:

Unlike the Western Europe, Israel is not affected by these measures. The Israeli government is concerned because:

1. The United States government, in an unpublished resolution, included Israel among the countries which the U.S. had special interests in and as to which the measures will be without effect, regarding the help or the investments.

2. American tourists visiting Israel were first of all well-known businessmen or religious people, who will also visit Israel in the future. “In addition, the ambassador continued, we, by our own travel bureau in the U.S., are going to bring tourists for Romania and other friendly countries, too”.

3. “We have been mostly worried by the possibility that the U.S. reconsiders the laws allowing the great manufacturers, traders and other categories of Jews in the U.S. to grant donations to the Jews in Israel, donations used to pay for their transportation to Israel, then they are assigned into kibbutzim. The American law does not include donations that are collected by an organization especially created by us for this purpose in the donors’ taxable revenues, more than that, they are diminishing the very tax paid to the U.S., which encourages donations. The Americans did not touch that law”.

The ambassador considered that the austerity measures taken by the U.S. will lead without any doubt to the decrease in the U.S. influence in the Western Europe.

AMFA, founds Telegram. Vienna, vol. 1/1968, f. 91-93.

245

162

TELEGRAM OF VALENTIN LIPATTI 1), AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY TO UNESCO, TO VASILE GLIGA,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION IN RELATION TO

RESOLVING THE CRISIS FROM THE NEAR EAST

No. 72 048 January 23, 1968, Paris, 5.00 a.m. Top Secret. Within a recent discussion, Israeli ambassador to UNESCO, M. [Mordechai] Avida,

referring to the current stage of the situation in the Near East, characterized it as extremely complicated and instable, due to the fact that the Arab countries bordering Israel, especially U.A.R., did not intend to find a negotiated political solution to the conflict with Israel, but, on the contrary, they were getting ready for a new war, with technical and military help received from the U.S.S.R. The Israeli diplomat reaffirmed his country’s position: Israel wishes a peaceful, lasting solution to the conflict, by direct negotiations with the Arab countries and would accept that these negotiations are mediated by Secretary General U Thant’s representative, Jarring, or by another mediator. However, in order to approach a negotiated solution it is necessary that, the Arab countries previously recognize “de jure” the State of Israel, abandon the retaliation policy and destruction of Israel, accept the free passage for Israeli ships in the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba, search, together with Israel, for a judicious solution to the Arab refugee problem.

To achieve all these objectives, Israel has only one ace to play, one means of pressure: the Arab territories occupied in June 1967. Withdrawing from these territories before negotiations would be a political suicide for Israel, as it would find itself in a more precarious situation than before the conflict. Therefore, Israel prefers to preserve the “status quo” created by its victory of June, which represents, by the occupied territories, a safety belt for its existence. Neither the international guarantee nor the possible presence of the U.N. troops in these territories can provide Israel with the certainty that its borders will not be violated. Maintaining their current positions, won through the armed conflict of June, Israel expects that, for finding a peaceful solution to the situation, the Arab policy changes direction. “Currently, unfortunately, there is no sign that the Arab countries have changed their attitude towards us”, Avida concluded. He also mentioned that, although the U.S.S.R. is actively involved in arming the U.A.R., however, this will not push the Arabs towards a new conflict, as it cannot risk a second military failure within such a short time. “And then, the Israeli diplomat noticed, the U.S.S.R., which considerably consolidated its presence in the Mediterranean Basin, would not want a new confrontation with the U.S. and maybe a global conflagration generated by the Near East crisis”.

Referring to the recent visit of L. Eshkol to the U.S. and to the discussions he had with the President Johnson, Avida pointed out that the U.S. assured Israel that they will support it, including with the military equipment requested, and they will act so that the USSR does not cross the “red line” of its sphere of influence and action in the Mediterranean. Johnson would advise Eshkol to offer all his support to UN envoy, Jarring, so that a negotiated solution for the crisis may still be achieved. 1) Valentin Lipatti (1923-1999), Romanian diplomat. Graduate of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy of Bucharest, professor at the University of Bucharest (1947-1958); Director of the Technical Secretariat of Romania’s National Commission for UNESCO (1958-1964); permanent representative (1965-1968) and then extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador to UNESCO-Paris (1968-1971).

246

As for the Romanian-Israeli relations, Avida showed that the wise policy of our country is highly appreciated in Israel and that the Israeli government considers the development of economic and commercial bilateral relationships to be especially important. The Israeli diplomat emphasized that his country desires to also develop these bilateral relationships at cultural level. “As far as the level of our mutual diplomatic representation is concerned, Avida concluded, we would be glad to be represented at embassy level. This depends only on Romania”.

During the discussion and, especially, in relation to the problem of withdrawing the Israeli troops from the territories occupied by force, I explained again to Avida the position of our government, reiterating, on this occasion, the need for negotiations between the parties concerned in order to find impartial solutions and bring a peace meant to eliminate the danger of armed conflicts and the harmful influence of imperialism in this region of the world.

The Israeli diplomat carefully listened to the facts, but he went back on repeated occasions on his thesis, according to which, in the current context, withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occupied territories is impossible without endangering the State of Israel itself.

AMFA, founds Telegram. Paris-UNESCO, vol. 1/1968, f. 18-20.

163

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 85 025 January 24, 1968, Tel Aviv, 3.00 p.m. Top Secret. Post-haste On January 23, 1968, Abba Eban invited me to Jerusalem, on which occasion he

reported on the recent events in the Near East and the meetings he had with G. Jarring. He considered that the recent discussions Comrade President of the State Council,

Nicolae Ceauşescu, had with E. Doron in Bucharest, as well as the meetings with Comrade Minister Corneliu Mănescu, and Mircea Maliţa at the U.N. were particularly useful for the relationships between the two countries, as well as for solving the Near East conflict.

The Israeli government took the in-principle decision to offer the U.N. Secretary General its entire support for the application of the Security Council’s Resolution.

G. Jarring develops between Cairo, Amman and Jerusalem a useful activity, informing all parties on the adopted positions. It is about conciliation between the three governments, as Syria refused to participate, and Lebanon, although willing, is not an emergency. The main stringent problems to be solved are the ones with Egypt and Jordan.

Abba Eban explained G. Jarring that the replacement of the current belligerence situation with a situation of peace and trust is the first requirement for defining the final borders.

It is hard to believe that such complex problems as the ones under dispute can be solved without contacts.

Although G. Jarring prepares the ground, explores the results and tries to create a situation and climate for a better relationship of the parties, he is still far away from creating direct contacts.

247

To achieve this goal, Israel does not exclude at all the direct participation of the U.N. representative.

The Israeli thesis on the necessity of direct negotiations is not inflexible and uncompromising; the procedure used at Rhodes in 1949 may be followed when the U.N. representative took part in the negotiations between the two parties.

Israel will show a certain flexibility to make G. Jarring’s job easier. The initiatives he undertook, such as free passage for the ships in the Canal, prisoner exchange, visits of the Egyptian and Jordanian citizens to Israel and vice versa, release of a number of persons arrested for espionage are several steps forward, which, however, did not have a direct impact on the central fundamental problems.

Given that for their approach, sooner or later, the parties’ positions have to be first carefully understood, Israel proposed Egypt the preliminary agenda, before getting in contact, while pointing out that he is willing to receive counterproposals.

On the agenda, he suggested political, legal problems, the need to replace the cease-fire agreement with a peace treaty, the free navigation on the international waterways, multilateral cooperation.

The territorial problems may be discussed based on the Security Council’s Resolution that mentions the need for stable and recognized borders for ensuring complete security.

Suggesting the discussion of borders, he considered that the territorial problem for Sinai was opened, and that the current cease-fire line did not match the borders.

The occupied territories are a legitimate problem to be discussed and negotiated in this context; creation of demilitarized zones or certain territorial changes may be requested.

Referring to the navigation on the international waterways, he mentioned that the abstract statements were alone insufficient, and a very precise agreement for Suez needed to be concluded, which would ensure the Israeli right to free navigation, without any discrimination, as ensured for all the countries in the world.

The Dardanelles could be an acceptable model for solving the navigation problems. The Gulf of Aqaba is a different problem, which may be solved between Israel and

Jordan, as it is not of international nature. The observance, mutual recognition and application of all provisions of the Security

Council’s Resolution must be carried out with the active participation of the two parties and not unilaterally.

G. Jarring, after discussing the problems on the agenda in Cairo, remained disappointed, as these had been rejected, without counterproposals or other suggestions, being requested only the withdrawal of the Israeli troops.

Such an attitude does not determine the two parties to meet half way, and does not bring them closer.

G. Jarring expressed Egypt the opinion that the interpretation they gave to the Security Council’s Resolution, asking only for the withdrawal of the Israeli troops, was unacceptable.

As far as Jordan is concerned, Abba Eban mentioned that he communicated in writing, through the U.N. representative, proposals for the agenda preceding the contacts, namely: refugee problem, agreement on the exit to the Mediterranean Sea, access to Muslim holy places, territorial problems, and economic cooperation.

After discussing them with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the President of the Council of Ministers and King Hussein1), G. Jarring communicated the same negative answer as from Egypt, mentioning that no interest was shown other than the withdrawal of troops.

Abba Eban said that, so far he had strived, showed goodwill, presented the agenda, but Egypt and Jordan rejected it, asking for the withdrawal of troops.

1) Hussein Ibn Talal (1935-1999), King of Jordan (1953-1999).

248

Israel did not want to prove that the thesis of contacts was inflexible and suggested that these were mediated, at first under the chairmanship of Jarring. Representatives were to be confidentially sent to his office, in Cyprus, to discuss the agenda, without getting into the essential problems.

The problem is that no suggestion was received on any of the proposals made; they were rejected without other counterproposals.

The conclusion reached by Jarring was that the discussions alone could not ensure the conclusion of an agreement, that the negotiations could not be avoided, otherwise everything would fail.

Speaking about the relationships between Romania and Israel, he mentioned that in October, after the discussions with Comrades Mănescu and Mircea Maliţa at the U.N., he understood that, in principle, Egypt agreed to the meetings and talks.

For this purpose, he cooperated within the Security Council to get a decision also because, at that stage, Egypt was not against the application in full of the resolution.

He now understands a certain withdrawal of Egypt, a negative attitude which was also noticed by Jarring.

In Egypt, a trend against the war and another one maintaining that the only way of solving the conflict is the use and resumption of hostilities started to take shape.

The second trend is a real danger not only to the Middle East, but also because a global conflict might break out.

The current position of the Egyptian government fluctuates and is divided between the two theses.

Referring to our country’s international position and prestige, he asked that the Romanian government continued to encourage the first thesis in Egypt, and also report, in confidence, about the progress of the events, being ready to hear opinions and receive suggestions.

This did not mean for Romania to replace Jarring, but to influence Egypt, by contacts or through diplomatic channels, to take the path of non-aggression and abandon the idea of solving the conflict by force.

Currently, the events are at a critical juncture. Jarring, after dealing with the agenda of the first stage and solving certain problems of

less significance, will try to apply the Security Council’s Resolution in its entirety and not selectively, in the following period.

While thanking for the information provided, I added that our country’s position on the Middle East conflict has remained unchanged. I briefly presented its content and pointed out that the parties concerned in the conflict have to continue to patiently and indefatigably try, without the use of military power, through discussions and talks, to bring their positions closer together to conclude a stable peace, which considers the legitimate interests of all peoples in the region. I provided assurances that I will report the problems raised to the Ministry.

The conversation lasted 35 minutes.

AMFA, founds Telegram. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f. 40-51. See also Ibidem, founds Israel. Problem 220/1968, unpaged (Conversation Note, subsequently drafted on March 13, 1968).

249

164

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDI NG THE POLITICAL SOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT

No. 85 026 January 25, 1968, Tel Aviv, 1.00 p.m. Top secret. Post-haste On the evening of January 24, at the dinner I offered in honour of Chief Rabbi,

Dr Rosen, Abba Eban informed me that a favourable opinion on solving the conflict by political means had taken shape in Amman over the past days.

During his last meeting in Jerusalem with G. Jarring, he was informed that a similar trend was noticed also in Cairo.

A partial reverse to the previous position of the two countries, which rejected the order of business proposed by Israel, is possible.

“There is a prospect – Abba Eban said – that the events may begin to take a more positive turn, reducing rigidity and easing tension, so that the conflicting countries may take some steps forward, small and timid as they may be at first, but full of hopes”.

In regard to this new evolution, G. Jarring requested to come to Jerusalem Monday, January 29, or Tuesday, January 30, current year.

AMFA, founds Telegram, Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f. 52.

165

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIA EMBASSY IN ATHENS TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ABOUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION CONCERNING THE U.N. RESOLUTION ON THE NEAR EAST PROBLEMS

No. 40 023 February 2, 1968, Athens, 12.00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent At the beginning of this week, comrade Bălaj had a meeting with Douek, Prime

Secretary of the Israeli Representation in Athens, out of which resulted that: While explaining the Israeli position on the Near East matter, Douek pointed out that the

Israeli government desired direct talks with the involved Arab governments. However, the known position of the Arab countries makes this desire of Israel impossible to accept. Given the situation, Israel cannot abandon the occupied Arab territories, hence their capitalization was set in motion. Considering the permanent arming of the Arab countries (the statement of the Minister of Defence of the United Arab Republic∗ that the Egyptian armed forces were superior to those before hostilities last year), Israel is also developing the defence capabilities of its armed forces. Douek buoyed the necessity of arming Israel, claiming that “The United Arab Republic is strong only for those who are weak”, which was why Israel was taking all

∗ The union between Egypt and Syria under the name of United Arab Republic was terminated in 1961, but Egypt continued to be known as the United Arab Republic until 1971.

250

the precautions to strengthen its armed forces. The idea of arming in order to face the Arab threats is unanimous in Israel.

In the current conjuncture, the Israeli government does not impose anything (negotiations), convinced that time was on its side.

While asked whether there were different opinions among the main political forces of the nation as to the future of the Arab territories occupied by Israel, Douek ascertained that, although there were some differing opinions, they were not official, and that the decision of the majority in the government was assuring an unique position of Israel.

At this point, in Israel it was achieved the unification of MAPAI, Haavoda and Rafi parties into the Israeli Workers’ Party.

This party has a “leftist” political orientation, being guided by the liberal socialist principles.

Speaking about the diplomatic efforts made by Jarring, U.N. Secretary General’s personal envoy to the Near East, Douek pointed out that Jarring’s mission “as regards Israel is very easy.” A first result of it would be the agreement between Israel and the U.A.R. concerning the prisoners swap and the unlocking of the Suez Canal.

Douek then spoke about the current situation of the Arab states. He determined that the unity of the Arab nations was far from being achieved. As for the position of different Arab states on the tension in the Near East, Douek singled out the following groups: Syria-Algeria, which have a hardliner position; the U.A.R., which has a leading position; royalist Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which lean towards concessions, Tunisia, which criticizes the position of the other states. Political unity of the Arab nations is supposed to be an ambition of Nasser, an idea which, in the opinion of the Israeli ambassador, will never be achieved.

Douek made reference to the hard economic situation of the U.A.R., adding that “even with money, one cannot live there,” as concluded by some diplomats who had recently been to Cairo, and whom he had spoken to.

Douek made reference to the foreign influences in the Near East. He deemed the U.S.S.R. as the “main responsible” for the existing situation, as it has rearmed the U.A.R. and bolsters a vengeful climate.

As for the relations between Israel and the United States, Douek asserted that “the United States is highly motivated to maintain Israel in this part of the world, because Israel is the only country in the Near East with a liberal policy”.

Douek attempted to emphasize the “Israeli humanitarianism”, by explaining the Israeli

position on prisoners’ treatment, speaking out against the incident recently provoked by Jordan at the bridge that crosses the Jordan River, on the occasion of the repatriation of Palestinian refugees living on Jordanian territory. Douek also made reference to the need for a normal co-operation between Israel and the Arab nations. Israel sends a large number of specialists to work in irrigation projects in Latin American countries, in Africa, and in Iran. Under normal co-operation conditions, the neighbouring Arab nations would also have enjoyed the Israeli achievements in the field of irrigations.

(Ss) T. Jianu

AMFA, founds Telegram, Athens, vol. 1/1968, f. 32-34.

251

166


THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES

No. 85 043 February 11, 1968, Tel Aviv, 6.00 p.m. Top secret From the discussions held by the Head of the mission with the Swedish, Swiss, and

Austrian ambassadors, who have recently visited the occupied territories, and by comrade Sfătcău Ion, Second Secretary, with some leftist political circles, resulted that:

Following the sabotage (“Al Fatah”) actions surge, the Defence Minister ordered the military administration to roughen the reprisal and intimidation measures against the Arab population in the Jordan territory and in Gaza. Collective punishment actions are under way, resulting in some cases in the blast (detonation) of residences, neighbourhoods, or entire villages, in massive arrests, and expelling of some Arab personalities charged with “inciting non co-operation” with the Israeli authorities. In the old (“Arab”) Jerusalem, the Jordanian identity card has been annulled, and the notion of Arab citizen suppressed.

Those who do not possess the new Israeli card are being sanctioned, fined or arrested. The releases of visas for crossing into Jordan as well as the approvals for family

reunification of the families from Gaza with the Arabs established on Israeli territory were temporarily stopped. Traffic from Ramallah and Jericho to Jerusalem was forbidden.

Thousands of families were separated, scattered. Sometimes, under the pretence of chasing saboteurs and thieves, the army and police, especially in Gaza, drag out from their houses in the middle of the night women, elders, and children, they conduct abusive searches, most of the time for imaginary reasons. Creating a state of mind that would favour “voluntary immigrations” of the Arabs to the neighbouring countries is pursued.

Police uses increasingly more methods of forcing the head of the household (on various charges) to leave the locality, so that, consequently, the whole family move afterwards.

The relation of the population of these territories to the military administration is at present limited to administrative matters; the large majority does not cooperate and does not support these agencies, a certain increase of its resistance being noticed.

The attempts made and pressures applied on most of the Arab notables so that they support the idea of creating a Palestinian state were fruitless so far, although the Israeli government offered its support, and appointed especially Y. Sanon, former director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to look into the matter. It is worth noting that almost the entire Arab population in the occupied territories reprobates the terror acts (“Al Fatah”), deeming them as a share to the oppression policy, and a contribution to justifying Israeli reprisals. These sabotages and acts of terror were conducted only by individuals who came across the border, with no support or contribution from the Arab notables or the population.

Arab leaders in the Jordanian territory, when consulted by Hussein, at the end of January 1968 (with the tacit approval of the Israeli military administration), on commencing separate talks with Israel to regulate contentious issues, offered a negative reply, estimating unanimously that such a step would be a betrayal of the Arab nations and the Palestinian cause.

[Ss] V. Georgescu


252

167


THE ISRAELI REACTION TO THE LATEST ACTIONS OF AL FATAH ORGANIZATION

No. 85 045 February 14, 1968, Tel Aviv, 2.00 p.m. Top secret. Post-haste Over the past few weeks, and especially during the last few days, the terror actions and

sabotage acts of the “Al Fatah” organization on Israeli territory as well as military skirmishes at the Jordanian border have clearly increased.

Diplomatic and political circles estimate that the Arab countries would pursue the creation of a climate which would force G. Jarring to admit the failure of his mission, while keeping at the same time the Israeli-Arab conflict in the focus of the world public.

In the discussion held on February 13, D’Alen Guiney [?], political editor of the daily “Yedioth Ahronoth”, recounted that important Israeli troops concentrations were made at the Jordanian border, while within military circles there is talk about the possibility of reprisal actions – Israeli troops crossing the Jordan River and occupying the portion of the Jordanian-Syrian border, where the Iraqi armies are stationed.

The execution of this plan would have as purpose cutting off access and prevent the entry of “Al Fatah” terrorists, and destroying the current gun and tanks emplacement used to bomb Israeli border regions.

The memorandum forwarded to the Security Council, the statement made on February 12 by the Prime Minister L. Eshkol, with a highlight on the fact that there is an end to patience, and that those who make victims among the population would not go unpunished, and the report presented in the Knesset by General Moshe Dayan attempt to emphasize, both domestically, for the Israeli population, and externally, the seriousness and the implications of the current incidents, the danger they pose to the peace in the region.

The office estimates that Israel has refrained from initiating larger-scale military reprisal actions both to facilitate the activity of the U.N. Special Envoy, preventing the Arab countries from having a pretext to put on his shoulders the burden of implementing the decision of the Security Council, and because of the recommendations made by the United States and England to exercise restraint and moderation, to respect the ceasefire lines.

Should the incidents along the Jordan River continue at the same scale and intensity, at any moment the worsening of the situation is possible, and, on Israeli initiative, even military skirmishes could occur, exceeding the current limited, local frame.

One cannot exclude, however, that during the following days the situation at the Jordanian border could be appeased, as a result of intense diplomatic activity conducted, of the Israeli warnings and of the endeavours made by the representatives of the U.S. State Department by the government in Amman.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


253

168

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ŢA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER

DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ON THE JARRING MISSION IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 05/001477 March [1], 1968, Bucharest Top secret On March 1, current year, Mircea Maliţa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, held an

audience with Eliezer Doron, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Israel in Bucharest, at his request.

Mircea Mironenco, attaché at Vth Division Relations, was in attendance. The audience lasted 30 minutes. After the formal mutuality, E. Doron showed that the purpose of his visit was to explain

the position of his country on the mission of the U.N. Secretary General’s Special Envoy Gunnar Jarring (See the Annex1).

He revealed that, in spite of the accord between G. Jarring, Israel and the U.A.R.2 that the discussions held through the U.N. emissary should not be disclosed, the Egyptian party did not respect this agreement. As a result, the Israeli party has decided to present the real facts to the friendly governments.

In the discussions held in the Security Council on the occasion of the adopting of the Resolution, on November 22, 1967, Abba Eban, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, promised to offer the entire support to the U.N. Secretary General Special Emissary, in his mission to secure a permanent peace. The Arab representatives did not express their position on this respect, except for Syria, which opposed the resolution.

G. Jarring’s mission was supported from the beginning by the Israeli party, which cooperated with him to the purpose of easing his task of finding a peaceful solution.

In the opinion of the Special Envoy an accord between the involved parties can be achieved only by direct talks, his strivings being directed specifically toward that.

The U.A.R. demanded the withdrawal of the Israeli forces as a precondition to any settlement. When they realized that their demand was going against the Security Council Resolution, Egyptians demanded that Israel promise in advance to meet Egypt’s requirements, meaning by that that Israel should withdraw, while the Arabs would make a general statement, in which they would show their preparedness to end the belligerence state and to recognize (only recognize) the principle of free navigation, on condition that the problem of the refugees be solved.

G. Jarring estimates that a progress can be made only if both parties accept a common formula on the approach to the resolution. The Israeli party attempted to meet G. Jarring’s demand, by proposing a few solutions, which the Egyptians turned down.

Israel argued that the resolution was not speaking of an implementation, but rather of the need for an agreement to be reached. 1 Shall not published – our ref. 2 On February 26, 1968, the Israeli government accepted the proposition made by G. Jarring, U.N. Secretary General’s Special Envoy for the Near East, to conduct through him peace negotiations with the U.A.R. and Jordan.

254

The Israeli party asked the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to inform the Egyptians it was ready to implement any accord that would be sealed between parties.

Israel has a positive attitude toward the Security Council Resolution, and is ready to support G. Jarring in his efforts to reach an accord that would establish a permanent peace.

“We are ready to include in our discussions with Egypt and the other Arab countries all the points of the Security Council Resolution.

We agree that the discussions be conducted under G. Jarring’s patronage, in accordance with his propositions.”

On a personal note, the Israeli Minister added that, though the Israeli party preferred direct talks, it agreed to change its position, attending discussions conducted through the agency of the U.N. emissaries, a formula used also in 1949, on the occasion of the negotiations regarding the closing of the Rhodes Armistice Agreements, when R. Bunche’s3) services were enlisted to that purpose.

Going on with his comment, E. Doron showed that the Egyptians still opposed any discussions with the Israeli party under the patronage of G. Jarring, holding the “Khartoum Resolution” position, which says that the Arab countries should not seal a peace with Israel, nor recognize it, and conduct no negotiations with it.

At the present moment, G. Jarring is trying to overcome the created stalemate, pursuing to stage a meeting of the parties. It is important that his endeavour receives the diplomatic support of the influent countries.

If the Arab party seeks to create a stalemate to the purpose of bringing the matter back before the Security Council, this resumption would not succeed in scaring Israel.

Its attitude is understood by the world public opinion and is conform to the international accepted procedures: “Given that we are interested in the peace process, we see no advantage in resuming discussions before the Security Council, as this would serve any other purpose than undermining the efforts made by G. Jarring so far.

I am inviting you, E. Doron went on to say, to inform that the Israeli government would appreciate any actions through diplomatic channels by the Egyptian party, so that the U.A.R. government accept G. Jarring’s position”.

Expressing gratitude for the exposition, Mircea Mali ţa showed that the position of our

country was known to the Israeli party. It was on various occasions brought into notice to the Israeli government by the Romanian officials, even at the highest level. He exposed the fundamental requirements the Romanian government expressed in relation to the establishment of a lasting peace, which comprise the withdrawal from the foreign territories, the recognition of the right of every state in the region to have its independent and sovereign existence secured, the right to security and untroubled peaceful development, the creation of normal relations between the states in the area.

AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 220/1969, unpaged. __________________________ 3 Ralph Johnson Bunche (1904-1971), American diplomat. In 1950 he received the Peace Nobel Prize, as tribute to his activity as U.N. mediator in the Palestine conflict. See also note 1 to doc. no. 157.

255

169

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA,

ON THE EVOLUTION OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 85 067 March 6, 1968, Tel Aviv, 1.00 p.m. Top secret. Urgent In the course of the discussion held on March 5, current year, Gershon Avner, Deputy

Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, revealed the following in connection to G. Jarring’s mission:

In the contacts he had with the Israeli party as well as with the Arab nations, Jarring said on more than one occasion that he felt tired, as he was commuting by plane. For that reason he intended to demand of the three countries to send representatives to Nicosia in the following period.

Israel agreed to this in principle, on condition that the meetings unfold after the pattern set in Rhodes, that is involving three parties.

Egypt did not oppose, but conditioned it on not having to meet directly the Israeli delegation.

Jordan announced it would take the same stand as Egypt. As a principle, Jarring does not take measures until he is absolutely certain that the

involved parties accept them. His meeting with U Thant, in New York, had as main purpose consulting before moving

to implement his initiatives as well as working on procedure issues. After the meetings with the representatives of Egypt, Jordan, The Four Great Powers,

members of the UN Secretariat, Jarring told, during the first days of March, the representative of Israel in New York, Y. Tekoah, the following:

1. Egypt accepts to meet Israel after the pattern set in Rhodes, given that the decision of the Security Council does not provide direct discussions.

2. If Israel begins withdrawing the troops from the occupied territories, Egypt agrees to make a statement on ceasing the belligerence state.

3. After the liberation of all territories, which could take one or two months, the solution of the Palestinian refugees problem should begin, and the free traffic of Israeli ships through Suez should be allowed.

Israeli government answered to these points in New York, by asserting that the decision

of the Security Council did not require as a precondition the unconditioned withdrawal of the Israeli troops, just as it does not provide direct discussions.

It agrees to send its representatives to Nicosia, at the written request of the U.N. representative, and to commence a bargaining similar to that in Rhodes over all provisions at once.

Following the above-mentioned, U Thant decided that Jarring return in the region, to

continue his activity for the solution of the procedural issues, to find a solution for the text of the invitation letter, and to try to summon the three countries at Nicosia.

In the opinion of the Israeli party, Jarring will have, for at least two weeks or a month, contacts again, in the capitals of the three countries, on procedure issues and closing of positions so as to draft an invitation and organize the meeting in Nicosia.

256

Abba Eban expressed hope that the stalemate can be overcome, being possible that in two months’ time this stage be completed.

To my question whether, assuming by any chance that the Arab countries consented

however to start talks in the Rhodes pattern, Israel would withdraw its troops, Avner replied clearly that the troops would not be withdrawn before discussions were held to establish new, secured, and recognized frontiers, in a signed peace treaty.

The liberation of the occupied territories is not overruled by the Israeli party. Provisory solutions can no longer be accepted. There is concern that once the withdrawal is completed, the Arab countries will not solve the other contentious problems of the conflict.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


170

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDI NG

REACTIONS TO THE IMMINENT RESUMPTION OF AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

No. 85 075 March 11, 1968, Tel Aviv, 2.00 p.m. Top secret English ambassador [Reginald] Michael Hadow [1915-1993, in Israel 1965-1969], in the

discussion held on March 10, estimated as imminent the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and Egypt. Such opinion has been formed lately within the Israeli diplomatic circles and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs too.

U.S.’s interests in the region and the course of events following the war in June 1967 in the Near East rush up the resumption of relations with Egypt and the other Arab nations.

The currently hard economic situation of Egypt, and the confusions created within the political, governmental and youth circles would preoccupy the United States, because the far right of the opposition would be more chauvinistic, more fanatical and extremist than Nasser’s regime, while the left wing is ready to go as far as to turn Egypt into a satellite state of the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics.

The English ambassador noticed that the U.S.S.R. would not be now completely disinterested in the resumption of diplomatic relations between the United States and the U.A.R., considering that, as it bears almost by itself the bulk of Egypt’s economic and military hardships, it would deepen some of its domestic own problems, especially with some socialist countries. It would want to continue to offer military support, while the U.S. and England contribute more substantially to the economic relief.

Likewise, as it has no desire to restart a war in the zone, the U.S.S.R. does not reject the idea that in the current situation the U.S. is in the position to compel Israel to make more substantial concessions to ease Jarring’s mission and the implementation of the Security Council decision.

AMFR, founds Telegram. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f. 130.

257

171


THE JARRING MISSION AND THE PERSPECTIVES TO SOLVE THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

No. 85 076 March 11, 1968, Tel Aviv, 11.00 p.m. Top secret. Post-haste Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director-General Gideon Rafael1 and David Hacoen,

President of Knesset’s Commission for Foreign Relations and Security, speaking on March 11, current year about the recommencement of G. Jarring’s activity in the region, estimated that a possible opportunity to invite the three states (Egypt, Jordan, Israel) in Nicosia to begin discussions is not in sight.

During the meeting with Abba Eban, on March 10, current year, Gunnar Jarring informed that Egypt rejected the proposition to send delegations in Cyprus, and all kind of discussions, direct or indirect, with Israel through the UN representative. For the first time, G. Jarring was disappointed, mentioning to Abba Eban that Egypt has reconsidered some of its previously accepted positions (the sending of the delegations to Nicosia without meeting with the Israeli delegation)2.

It would be possible, after the meeting with the Jordanian authorities in Amman, for G. Jarring to adjourn the talks for a prospective meeting of the three states and return to the UN to present his report and consult with U Thant.

Within the diplomatic circles it is believed, unanimously for the first time, that the chances of G. Jarring continuing his activity are slim, that Egypt and Jordan will not accept any sort of compromise until Israel begins withdrawing the troops from the occupied territories, and that a surge in political tension will be inevitable in the following months.

David Hacoen said Israel would not cede not even a meter of the conquered territories until the Arab countries have accepted to solve by negotiation the problem of secured and recognized borders as well as the other contentious issues.

Though resuming larger-scale hostilities is relatively remote, Israel will continue to strengthen its armed forces, to supply its special units with modern armaments, and to fortify itself militarily on the ceasefire line.

Israeli government decided to conduct a large diplomatic and political campaign domestically and abroad in order to present Israel’s position and to prove that the possible interruption of G. Jarring’s mission is due to the refusal of the Arab countries to implement the Security Council decision.

To that effect, on March 12, current year Abba Eban will hold a press conference in Jerusalem, during which he will approach this topic, without closing the possibility for U Thant or other countries to have a new initiative that would solve the conflict.

1 Gideon Raphael (1913-1999), Israeli politician and diplomat. Former special political chargé d’affaires of the Jewish International Agency (1945-1946); Member of the Israeli Permanent Delegation at the United States (1948-1953); Ambassador to Brussels and Luxembourg (1953-1957), Representative of the State of Israel by the European Commission (1957-1960), Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1960-1965), U.N. Ambassador to Geneva (1965-1966), Director-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (since 1968). 2 The Egyptian government rejected on March 7, 1967 the plan regarding the initiation of Jordanian-Egyptian-Israeli peace talks in Nicosia, as long as Israel does not withdraw the troops from the Arab occupied territories. The Arab states supported the Egyptian position.

258

Thursday, March 13, current year the Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Dayan, will hold a press conference in Tel Aviv on the same issues, dwelling upon the measures to eliminate the “Al Fatah” terrorists and the necessity to strengthen the Israeli defence forces.

[Ss] V. Georgescu


172

TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU,

ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON ROMANIA’S ZONAL DIPLOMATIC POSITION

IN SUPPORT OF EFFORTS TO SOLVE THE NEAR EAST PROBLEMS

March 19, 1968, Bucharest

1. As you are aware of, the U.N. Secretary General’s Special Envoy for the Near East, who is operating on the basis of the Security Council Resolution from November 22, 1967, has initiated so far a series of contacts with officials in the U.A.R., Israel and Jordan, about which our diplomatic offices have transmitted useful information.

It is the unanimous opinion that the resolution constitutes a basis, a starting point for the solution of the problems.

Though with some inaccuracies, the Resolution establishes principles of settling the situation, which are close to our point of view, expressed in the Statement of June 10, 19671, referring to the Near East, and in other documents.

An important role in the elaboration and the passing of the resolution was played by the consultations and discussions the President of the General Assembly and the Romanian delegation had with all those on whom the agreement upon it depended.

It is safe to say that by this resolution an internal mechanism was created, a favourable frame, which could lead to a new stage, that of creating an appropriate working climate for a realistic approach on the zonal situation and the taking of concrete actions for the solution of a compound of problems the countries in the region are confronted with. It is important that the provisions of this resolution find a usage as soon as possible, that all peace-loving countries insist on putting into practice its provisions, and on fostering the idea of solving the situation by political means.

2. The governments of the U.A.R., Jordan and Israel did not reject the Resolution of the Security Council and accepted to cooperate with the U.N. Secretary General’s Envoy for the Near East. Each party showed, however, from its well-known position, that the resolution had inaccuracies and shortcomings.

The Syrian government rejected the resolution, and does not accept any contacts with Ambassador G. Jarring.

By the informing contacts he has at present, U.N. Secretary General’s Envoy succeeded in determining the involved parties to achieve technical actions, such as prisoners swap and the attempt to unlock some foreign ships situated in the Suez Canal, though both of them failed.

As for the methods of solving the fundamental issues (the withdrawal of the Israeli troops, the Arab refugees, the recognition of Israel’s existence, traffic through the Suez Canal

1 The Statement was published on June 11, 1967.

259

etc.), of scheduling and of establishing stages in which they are to be solved, the positions of the involved parties are still very separated.

The U.A.R. government considers that the primary task of Ambassador G. Jarring is to make sure the Israeli troops are withdrawn from the occupied territories. Then Israel should solve the problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine. Until now, the U.A.R. avoided to express a clear position on the existence of Israel as a state. Jordan has been embracing lately a similar position to that of the U.A.R.

By accepting the Security Council Resolution of November 1967, mainly because it does not contain its labelling as aggressor, the Israeli government took the U.N. Secretary General’s Envoy mission and competences with grain and salt, considering that only “direct talks” with the involved Arab countries could lead to the solution of the situation in the Near East.

Lately – especially after the Prime Minister Eshkol’s visit to the United States, where, according to some information, he was advised to pay attention to other intermediary stages (for example, Ambassador Jarring’s mission) – the government and the Israeli diplomacy go to great lengths to make believe that they show versatility to facilitate G. Jarring’s activity, that they would offer him all their support for the implementation of the Security Council decisions, but in reality they are attempting to use Jarring only to obtain direct talks with the Arabs.

Although the Israeli leadership acknowledges that a trend in favour of a political solution in the Near East is taking shape in Egypt, they take no action to meet this trend, show no initiative in finding some methods, an approach frame on the problems to lead to their solution, and pay no attention to the sensibilities of the Arab countries to the “direct talks.” On the contrary, they continue to make public statements, in which they say Israel is not withdrawing from the Arab occupied territories, use the occupation as means to pressure in order to obtain direct talks with the Arabs, and take actions against the respective Arab population in the occupied territories.

3. On appropriate occasions, the Romanian party expressed to the Israeli government its concern over such statements issued by Israeli responsible officials who say that Israel would keep the occupied territories, statements which do not contribute to creating of an appropriate climate that would allow the finding of a political solution. The Israeli party was told that the present situation in the Near East demanded finding other forms of solution, mutually acceptable, with the participation of the involved parties, taking into account the interests of all nations in the region, and that “direct talks” were not the only way out, and that insisting exclusively on them blocks the path of finding a political solution. The need for a policy of great understanding of the Arab vital interests and sensibilities, of the propositions made by the Arab nations was outlined.

At present, we have information that the Israeli government would be willing to hold talks with the Arabs through the U.N., and is waiting for the Arabs to transmit their consent on this respect through Jarring, but it is expressing at the same time the conviction that they will eventually sit at the negotiation table with the Arabs.

In intercommunity with leading personalities of other states, the Romanian party also stressed out that prolonging the current state of affairs is not in favour of the Arab states and that they should make efforts to find a solution that would lead to the withdrawal of the Israeli troops and the recognition of the right to exist to all states of the region, including Israel.

4. On different occasions, Israeli officials and diplomats told the Romanian diplomats that the Israeli government would agree to offer the U.N. Secretary General their entire support for the implementation of the Security Council decision, that Israel would show versatility in order to facilitate the activity of Ambassador G. Jarring.

260

Confronted with such statements, some of the Romanian diplomats contented themselves with filing them and informing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It would have been useful, if the Romanian diplomats had showed – tactfully – that it would be better if this kind of situations were followed by initiatives and concrete actions, facts.

Through appropriate questions, the Israeli party could have been probed on the initiative and the actions it desired to take in order to prove versatility and the support for facilitating G. Jarring’s activity.

5. Considering the above-mentioned elements, we deem appropriate that in the future, in the discussions with diplomats and officials in your residence countries, you should present actively the position of our country on the current situation in the Near East, insisting on the following elements:

- The Security Council Resolution defines the principles that can lay at the foundation of a reasonable settlement of the contentious issues. It demanded an international mechanism, an appropriate framework, which may, if used skilfully and with flexibility, lead to new steps on the path to finding acceptable solutions for all parties involved.

- For this it is necessary that both parties manifest realism, flexibility, good faith, and make continuous efforts to put into practice the principles of the resolution.

- Hard-line positions and rigid statements, especially those issued by officials, are not designed to favour the finding of such a solution. Express concern about such declarations, pointing out the need for the parties to be situated on constructive position.

- The current situation in the Near East demands the patient and perseverant search for suitable methods and forms which would lead to the solving of the problems in the region, with the participation of all nations in the Near East. Direct talks are a sure and radical way to solve problems, but are not the only way. (See point 3).

It is necessary that both in the discussions with the Israeli interlocutors, and in those with the Arab ones, Romanian diplomats present in detail Romania’s position, expand the range of conversation topics related to the intentions and the initiatives the respective parties have in mind for finding the concrete solutions to solve the situation in the Near East.


173

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURL ACU,

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS, THE JARRING MISSION AND

ISRAEL’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ROMANIA’S ACTIONS FOR SOLVING THE CRISIS IN THE REGION

No. 85 085 March 19, 1968, Tel Aviv, 22.00 h Top Secret. Urgent From the discussions with Gideon Rafael, Director General within the Foreign Affairs

Ministry, regarding the political evolutions in the area, resulted the following: From the meetings with G. Jarring, it resulted that the Arab countries will not attend the

negotiations and neither go along with the Resolution of the Security Council. Recently, through him, Israel asked Egypt four questions: 1) If it really intends to engage in the peace talks.

261

G. Jarring clearly answered: “No, Egypt does not have this intention”. 2) If it is willing to analyze together with Israel the ways that might lead to peace. The answer was that Egypt does not intend such thing and does not want to evaluate

these means. 3) If it wishes to discuss and settle with Israel the boarder in accordance with the

Resolution of the Security Council. G. Jarring answered: “No, Egypt wants Israel to withdraw its troops outside the lines of

June 5, 1967”. 4) If Israel will withdraw its troops from the Suez Canal, will Egypt allow free

navigation and guaranty for the ships passing through the Canal? He said that before guaranteeing free pass of the Israeli ships, the problem of the

Palestinian refugees should be solved. During the last meeting from Jerusalem, G. Jarring expressed Egypt’s totally negative

position. Israel concluded that the resolution of the conflict has not progressed at all; but, on the

contrary is in an impasse. There shall be no. initiative from Jordan to solve it, as long as Egypt will not make any

steps in this regard. However, Israel does not lose hope, especially for two reasons, respectively: a) It is hoped that Egypt’s current position is determined by the difficulties that it is

facing. b) Sooner or later, all the countries in the region will realize that the only solution for

solving the litigious problems is a peace treaty. In the opinion of my interlocutor, the key to settle this is to be found in changing the

attitude of the Arab countries towards Israel and solving the issues of the conflict. To my question, Gideon Rafael answered that Israel agrees to fully implement the

Resolution of the Security Council of November 22, 1967, and searches for the forms and means to reach an agreement to negotiate its implementation.

Unfortunately, until now, the neighbouring Arab countries have blocked and rejected all the proposals made as well as the initiatives undertaken.

He saluted the constructive position adopted by Romania regarding the conflict, mentioning that it had and will continue to have a big role in solving the crisis.

Based on the transcripts of the conversations that we received from different capitals of the world, he expressed his belief that many of Romania’s friends, who do not share, yet, its position on the Middle East, will become convinced, perhaps soon, of its fairness and principledness.

The office believes that the Israeli government avoids making a public statement agreeing with the application of the Security Council decision, because it does not want to give up some of the old Jerusalem and part of the occupied territories. Restoring the new frontiers is intended to be done with some territorial rectifications in its favour.

Militarily, it will intensify the measures to strengthen and equip the armed forces, especially aviation, with modern equipment and it will not give up the local military retaliation over Jordan and even Syria, if “Al Fatah” organization continues its actions of terror and sabotage inside Israeli territory.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f .148-150.

262

174

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALI ŢA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON,

EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE LATEST EVENTS FROM THE NEA R EAST

No. 05/001809 March 23, 1968, Bucharest Top Secret On March 14 this year, Mircea Maliţa, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, met Eliezer

Doron, Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of Israel in Bucharest, at his request.

Mircea Mironenco, attaché to the Vth Department Relations, assisted. After the usual interchange of civilities, E. Doron said that the purpose of his visit is to

get informed about the latest events occurring in the Near East and, in the opinion of the Israeli side, on what could be done to archive progress.

G. Jarring, in his activity, after returning from New York, requested the parties concerned to support and implement the Security Council’s Resolution of November 22, 1967 and invited Egypt, Jordan and Israel to negotiations under his auspices – according to the formula used in 1949 at Rhodes – in Cyprus, in order to find a solution that would bring peace in the area.

According to Israeli information and from those reported by G. Jarring, it results that, lately, Egyptians have radically changed their position. They rejected any talks with the Israelis until the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the borderline existing in June last year.

One can appreciate that Egypt created such a situation so that any action to be interrupted.

The Egyptian side explained that a new approach as a reverse action to the decisions of the Israeli government (February 29 this year) according to which the territory of Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and Golan (territories occupied by Israel after the armed conflict in June 1967) will not be considered, under the law, as “enemy territory”.

However, this is not true; Egyptian position is still based on “Khartoum Resolution,” which stipulates that the Arab countries should not conclude a peace treaty with Israel, to recognize and negotiate with it.

Egyptians change of heart surprised both the Israeli side as well as the Special Envoy of the U.N. Secretary General, G. Jarring.

However, the Israeli side is always ready to accept G. Jarring invitation to meet in Cyprus with the Egyptians and Jordanians.

Israeli Minister pointed out, particularly, our country’s change of position – giving up direct negotiations – compromise made precisely to establish a peace climate in the region.

Israeli’s government opinion, similar to the one of G. Jarring, is that regarding Egyptians position, the following conclusions can be drawn for the current period:

- They do not feel obliged to attend the direct or any other form of negotiation to bring peace in the region;

- They are against any kind of negotiations, regardless the method used; - They are not prepared for the talks on recognizing Israel’s borders; - They do not agree with Israeli ships movement through Suez Canal prior to solving the

issue of Arab refugees.

263

In addition, Egyptians believe that a new component of the Security Council would allow them a new resolution, which would explicitly, demand the withdrawal of the Israeli troops.

G. Jarring is not yet ready to report to the General Secretary on the newly created situation, hoping for an improvement. The Israeli side, too, believes that G. Jarring mission is going through a rough period, given that the Egyptians became unresponsive to any intention and actions to identify solutions for solving the crisis.

Israel is in favour of establishing peace in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution, regardless the means of achievement, directly or through G. Jarring, but one can notice that the Egyptians have no. intent of recognizing Israel (one can notice that the Egyptians will not recognize Israel not even after 20 years of existence). The last speech of Nasser proves that Egypt is intensely preparing for war and uses any action of Israel (internal and external) for not making any step for improving the situation.

Israel instead cannot go on living under the given conditions without getting some guarantees over its security.

E. Doron said that Israel does not have a good experience regarding Egypt’s observance of various treaties and declarations.

Thus, in January 1950, Egyptians declared U.S. that passing through the Tiran Strait is free for any ship, while three months later just to declare to the American side that the Israeli ships will be considered hostile.

In addition, in 1949, immediately after signing the ceasefire agreement, Egypt stated that there are no. incumbent obligations, the state of belligerence being further maintained.

They did the same thing in 1957 when settling the borders of Gaza region. In conclusion, E. Doron said that, in his presentation, he tried to point out the current

unstable situation in the area. In this regard, he reiterated the request that Romania to come and assist to G. Jarring mission.



175

TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDIN G THE ISRAELI REACTIONS TO

THE DECISION OF THE U.N.’S SECURITY COUNCIL CONDEMNING THE MILITARY ACTIONS IN JORDAN

No. 85 098 March, 26, 1968, Tel Aviv, 14.00 h Top Secret. Post-haste Government political circles and most of the members of the Parliament are

disappointed unto the decision of the Security Council condemning the recent military action in Jordan1.

Simultaneous it is noted that [sic!] the Security Council Charter stipulates that the right to self-defence to be guaranteed to all the peoples, right that Israel will use in the future.

1 On May 21, 1968, Israeli troops (approx. 15,000 people) conducted a raid on Jordanian territory against the bases of the Palestinian resistance movement, the largest Israeli action after the war of June 1967. On March 27, 1968, U.N. Security Council condemned, unanimously, Israel’s action. In this regard, see also doc. no. 176.

264

The incapacity and inability of this international body to ensure peace in the Middle East and to distinguish between retaliation military actions and those for defence was once again proven.

Also, it is confirmed the idea according to which international organizations and the Security Council consider that everything is allow to the greatest, the many hold all rights while the smallest have to obey and orderly execute.

Israeli Parliament, on March 25 this year, adopted with 61 votes in favour, 4 against (the two groups of I.C.P.) and 1 abstention, the position expressed by the Prime Minister L. Eshkol, respectively that the action was absolutely necessary and imposed by the concern for the security of the country and that peace will not rule at the border as long as Jordan and the other Arab countries support “Al-Fatah” terrorists and Israel will fight and stand out for its right to existence and life.

Note that L. Eshkol, during the parliamentary debates, became angry and expressed his deep dissatisfaction, considering as “poison” among the masses, the criticism expressed by some MPs against the military action on March 21, against its consequences and the large number of deaths and injuries among Israeli soldiers.

Some members of the government and senior officials of the Foreign Affairs Ministry are deeply concerned and troubled by the position expressed by the French delegate in the Security Council debate, saying that any hope of moderating the position towards Israel was permanently shattered, once it was clarified the fact that the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories was considered by France as a preliminary condition to solving the conflict.

The office believes that Israel will not change the policy adopted so far and during the next period it will continue to organize, unto the terrorist and sabotaging actions, military retaliation against Arab neighbouring countries.

To prevent intensifying of infiltrations, it will speed up the placement, along the ceasefire lines with Jordanians and Syrians of electronic detection devices, purchased from U.S. and will extend up to 10 km in depth the mining of these territories.

Among the population in the occupied territories, alongside the so-called policy of non-interference in their internal affairs and the measures of appreciation and interest into the social and economic leadership of the towns and villages of some notable Arabs, are to be strengthened the security measures and hardened the penalties against the citizens who directly or indirectly support or come in contact with terrorist organizations or their members.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


176

PROPOSALS NOTE OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

No. 05/001701 April 29, 1968, Bucharest Top Secret

1. During a recent meeting at the Foreign Affairs Ministry, M.F. Hamad1, Ambassador of U.A.R. in Bucharest, said that he was advised to explain and take all necessary measures so 1 Mohammad Fahmy Hamad (born 1921), Egyptian officer and diplomat, adviser within the Foreign Affairs Ministry (1958-1959), Director of the Latin America Department (1959), afterwards of Planning Department; Extraordinary and plenipotentiary Ambassador in Bucharest (December 13, 1963-September 17, 1968).

265

that Romania to assume an explicit position as regards the recent evolutions of the Near East situation. U.A.R. government, continued the Egyptian Ambassador, asks the Romanian government, the Romanian Communist Party and the Romanian friend people to urge Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and observe the Resolution of the Security Council.

M.F. Hamad mentioned that he would be grateful if “he would find out what to pass on to his government regarding this request”.

2. Also, the Romanian Ambassador in Syria was invited to the Foreign Affairs Ministry, where he learned, officially, about the position of the Syrian government regarding the decisions of Israeli authorities of February 29 this year, according to which the territories occupied after the war of June 1967 shall not be considered “hostile territories”.

Syrian representative informed that Italy and Great Britain already made statements condemning the “expansionist” measures taken by Israel, and he passed on the request of the Syrian government that Romania to release a similar statement.

Similar communications were made to all the other heads of diplomatic missions of social countries, accredited in Damascus.

3. On February 29, 1968, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Justice published a decree according to which Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and Golan territories (occupied by Israel after the Israeli-Arabian conflict of June 1967) should not be considered, under the law, “hostile territories”.

Israeli government spokesman stated several times that this decision is a “purely administrative” measure and aims to facilitate the communication between Israel and the territories they control and allows Israeli citizens to travel to these areas without violating the existing countries. In addition, they said that the measure does not constitute “a step toward annexation”, but a “technical” decision, which “poses no. implication for the future of these territories”.

Under Annex l* is presented the manner in which the socialist countries and some occidental ones reacted to the measures undertaken by the Israeli authorities.

4. On March 21 this year, Israeli forces attacked Jordan under the pretext of a retaliation operation against several centres and training camps of the “terrorists” of “Al Fatah” organization. On the same day, Israeli forces withdrew.

On March 22 this year, at Jordan’s request and then Israel’s, the Security Council convened, on March 24, and adopted unanimously a resolution regarding the armed actions taking place in Jordan and Israel.

The resolution deplores the heavy loss of life and property damage, condemning the military action launched by Israel, in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolutions. Also deplores the violent incidents that occurred in violation of the ceasefire agreement and declare that such acts of military retaliation and other serious violations of the ceasefire cannot be tolerated and that the Security Council would have to consider new and more effective provisions in the Charter to prevent the recurrence of such acts. Calls on Israel to stop the acts or activities contrary to the Resolution 237/1967, asks the General Secretary to monitor the situation and keep the Security Council informed.

Under Annex II* is presented the manner in which the socialist countries and some occidental ones reacted to Israeli action.

Given that our country declared herself in favour of the withdrawal from the occupied territories and against the use of force to solve the dispute, we believe that we could take a stand on the Israeli Government decision of February 29, this year, regarding the Arab territories and towards Israeli attack on Jordan.

In relation to the aforementioned, we propose: * Shall not be published - [our ref.]. * Shall not be published - [our ref.].

266

1. Israeli Minister in Bucharest to be called in to the President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, and on this occasion to point out that:

- Romanian government is concerned about some actions undertaken by Israel recently: the decision according to which Sinai, West Bank, Gaza and Golan territories (occupied by Israel following the armed conflict of June 1967) shall not be considered, from the legal point of view, “hostile territories”, military raid against a part of Jordan – March 21, this year.

- We believe that such actions are not likely to contribute to the resolution of the problems in the area, but rather complicate and delay the identification of viable solutions.

- Romanian government considers that Israel should take the measures that could effectively lead to a peaceful solution in the Near East, in accordance with the spirit of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, and which constitutes a proper framework to this end.

2. Central media shall record the meeting of the Israeli Minister in Bucharest with the President of the Council of Ministers of the Socialist Republic of Romania.

After two days, one of the central newspapers shall conduct an analysis of the Near East situation. This analysis should comprise also the considerations presented by the Israeli Minister.


177


DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE HEAD OF THE ISRAELI COMMU NIST PARTY

ON THE ISSUE OF SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

No. 85 143 May 1, 1968, Tel Aviv, 20.00 h Top Secret. Post-haste On April 30 this year, at the Office, I had a meeting with S. Mikunis, General Secretary

of the Israeli Communist Party and M. Sneh, at their request. Among the issues raised, they said that the Political Bureau of the Israeli Communist

Party has discussed, a few days ago, about the forthcoming visit of General de Gaulle in Romania1.

They concluded that our country, aiming to develop and consolidate its relations with France, will, of course, pay a particularly importance in the preparation and evolution of this visit.

The Political Bureau of the Israeli Communist Party agrees and considers that de Gaulle presence in Bucharest and the discussions with the Romanian leaders will have a particular importance, internationally, for the security of Europe and the resolution of the Near East situation.

However, they have one concern, i.e. in the joint press statement to be released, the issue of the conflict not to be treated unilateral or to mention only the first part of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967.

1 Reference to the planned visit of the President of the French Republic, General Charles de Gaulle, in Romania. This took place in May 14-18, 1968, being the first visit of a French Head of State in our country The Romanian-French Joint Declaration, adopted at the end of the visit, emphasized Romanian and French agreement on the fundamental principles of international law.

267

They pointed out this concern because, during the meeting between de Gaulle and President [Abdel-Rahman] Aref of Iraq, the press release mentioned only the need for the evacuation of Israeli troops from occupied territories without also talking about the other provisions of the French position on the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East.

As far as the Israeli Communist Party knows, from the talks with President Aref, de Gaulle initially presented France’s position integrally.

At Aref’s insistence, from the five points, the press release only included the withdrawal of the Israeli troops, thus satisfying only the Arabs and the views of the Egyptians and Soviet Union. The fact that de Gaulle agreed to make these changes means, in fact, that he is pro compromising. On these grounds, the Political Bureau of the Israeli Communist Party suggests and asks our party and state’s leadership that the joint press release to include the Arab-Israeli conflict solving based on the Security Council’s Resolution of November or on the decision of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the countries participating in the Warsaw Treaty, January 1968. The decisions mentioned, taken as a whole and not selectively, satisfy both Israeli side as well as the Arabs.

S. Mikunis and M. Sneh said that these proposals are made in the interests of both parties, Israeli and Romanian Communist Parties, in the interest of both peoples – Israeli and Romanian – for peace in the region.

It will also have international importance, helping the fight of the democratic and progressive forces, the moderate majority of the Israeli government, in taking a decisive action to resolve the conflict with the Arabs.

Given that the suggestions of the Israeli Communist Party were accepted and de Gaulle

was determined to fight for this solution of resolving the conflict, Romania’s world prestige will increase even more, the public opinion in Israel and the Jews around the world would be won over. Additionally, Czechoslovakia will follow Romania’s example and shortly Hungary will do the same.

In conclusion, S. Mikunis reiterated the fact that the Israeli Communist Party will continue the fight in Israel, on the line agreed during the last meeting in Bucharest with the leadership of the Romanian Communist Party.

With the first courier, we will submit the transcript note, which will detail all issues discussed.


178


THE VISIT OF THE DELEGATION LEAD BY GEORGE MACOVESC U1 IN ISRAEL AND ITS IMPACT

No. 85 191 June 25, 1968, Tel Aviv, 09.00 h Top Secret

Continuing the report2 on the visit to Israel of the First Deputy Minister, comrade George Macovescu, we present the following:

1 George Macovescu (born 1916), Romanian politician, diplomat and writer. Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister (1959-1961), Deputy (1963-1965), First Deputy (1965-1972) of the Minister of Foreign Affairs (1972-1978).

268

Political circles and journalists continue to believe that, the efforts made by Romania to peacefully solve the Middle East conflict are directly related to the good relations that our country has both with Israel as well as with the Arab countries and which offers it the perspective to objectively analyze the attitude of the two parties and to use it in the interest of peace.

The idea that the first visit to Israel of an acting Minister of Foreign Affairs from a socialist state is regarded with much sympathy and trust, saying that this is the only way Israeli side can correctly inform the socialist block that Israel is for direct talks. An indirect solution of the conflict, although recognized by international factors, will be an “armed peace” and will not contain guarantees for conflict settlement.

Stating that the foundation of the talks should be the decision of the Security Council of November 22 1967, it is unanimously determined that it will not be easy for Israel to reject the initiative of Romania, one of the countries that helped the adoption of the respective decision. Although he pointed out that Romania is far from adopting a pro-Israeli attitude, he also mentioned that its attitude is objective and, if the rest of the socialist states led by the Soviet Union would adopt a similar attitude as Romania, the Middle East conflict would be fairly solved.

The way Romania behaves deserves to serve as a model for the rest of the communist states as the unlimited support given to these Arab countries inevitably increases the tension and risks of war in the Middle East.

Israel congratulates us for the visit of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Israel and appreciates the attitude of the Romanian government for the progress of the cause in the region.

(Ss) N. Ionescu AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f. 318-319.

179

MESSAGE OF LEVI ESHKOL, PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL,

TO ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI G OVERNMENT

IN SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

August 4, 19681, Jerusalem

Mr. Prime Minister, I am grateful for the numerous opportunities during which it was recently possible to

exchange views with the Romanian government on the situation in the Near East. I am perfectly aware that the only interest of Romania in the situation is to promote peace and freedom for all nations in the region. Moreover, Israeli Government and people share entirely your concern that little progress has been achieved during the year that has passed after the hostilities in 1967, for establishing permanent peace.

Israel holds the highest reverence for the principles of justice and realism, the foundation of the Romanian foreign policy. Maintaining and developing friendly relations with Israel, as with all the other countries in the Near East, comply with the essential principles of international coexistence. I discover with great satisfaction the constant

2 See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1968, f. 316-317. 1 On the same date, August 4, 1968, Israeli aviation conducted an air strike over some regions in Jordan.

269

development of our bilateral relations in various fields, for the mutual benefit of our two countries.

We were pleased to welcome, in June this year, Mr. Macovescu, Minister a.i. of Foreign Affairs2; he led sincere and fruitful discussions with our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Abba Eban as well as with me, during which we could collect his thoughts on the attitude and policy of the U.A.R. During this visit, it was agree that I should write you, directly, Mr. Prime Minister, to present you Israel’s position and government policy on the current situation in the region. I notice that, following our exchange of views, Romania perfectly understood the great danger that threatened Israel in May 1967. Our country found itself surrounded on land, see and air by the forces of the Arab countries. It is subject to a sabotage action conducted by some units organized in the neighbouring states and was threatened directly with the full annihilation in the war statements made by the heads of Arab states.

From the dramatic experience of 1967, we have learned lessons that have direct impact on our current policy. First, as long as the Arab governments refuse to make permanent peace with Israel, with the full recognition of its sovereignty and national identity, the risk of armed conflict is not completely eliminated. Secondly, Israel cannot count on any actual external help, from either the Great Powers or the United Nations, if its existence is threatened by a military attack.

Precisely due to this experience, we sought and obtained international support for our refusal to return to the situation that led to the war of 1967. If Israel would evacuate ceasefire lines without establishing a permanent peace based on secure and recognized borders, we risk a prompt resumption of aggression and we endanger our own survival. One cannot expect from my colleagues or me to assume, in full consciousness and rationality, a responsibility so serious, and that is why we want to change the uncertain armistice lines with recognized and safe borders. Instead of belligerence and non-recognition, we stand for normal relations between states. This policy is in full compliance not only with the principles of international law, but also, particularly, with those set forth in the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967.

Since the end of the conflict, we have never stopped fighting to make efforts to replace the cease-fire situation with a permanent peace. During the sessions of the United Nations, in the summer and autumn of 1967, we tried, as you know, to contact the Arab representatives through your delegation. When Ambassador Jarring was appointed, in December 1967, we announced our intention to cooperate with him in achieving its mission of promoting an agreement to establish a permanent peace. In January 1968, I proposed the United Arab Republic and Jordan, through Ambassador Jarring, a detailed agenda for peace talks. We made it very clearly that we considered border routes as subject of negotiations. In other words, we have never assumed that cease-fire lines must coincide with the borders of the final peace. In our opinion, they should be determined by agreement between the States concerned, taking into account security, legitimate interests and national dignity of all parties.

In March, we have accepted the proposal of Ambassador Jarring to organize meetings between Israel and the Arab states, under its auspices. This proposal was rejected by the United Arab Republic. In May, the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented, in Knesset, a method for establishing a permanent peace. At the same time, we seriously considered the possibility of peace talks with Jordan. This evaluation continues. We maintain close contacts with Palestinian Arab leaders, who, at their turn are in contact with Jordan. Ambassador Jarring informed us last month that he maintains its view that the parties should meet under his auspices, in order to seek an agreement on the establishment of peace.

2 In the period June 22 – 23, 1968 took place the first official visit of a high level Romanian diplomat to Israel – George Macovescu, First Deputy of the Foreign Minister of Romania. See also doc. no. 178.

270

Instead of using all these opportunities to discuss a peace agreement with Israel, the United Arab Republic has constantly conducted a negative and essentially rigid policy, although camouflaged by early semantic effects making it look constructive. We have given utmost importance to any concrete steps of the United Arab Republic’s policy that would remove it from the triple negative position, the one of the Conference in Khartoum (“No peace, no negotiations, no recognition”) and would lead to seeking permanent peace. Peace between Egypt and Israel is the natural foundation that supports the stability in the Near East. If there would be a small, but sincere, initiative from Cairo, we would not hesitate to answer.

Unfortunately, Egyptian politics is deeply rooted into the three negative principles that I have quoted. We very carefully considered various ideas promoted by the United Arab Republic in May and June and which your ad-interim Minister of Foreign Affairs have communicated.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that, aside semantics and formulas, they are essentially reduced to the following: Israel must withdraw to its positions of June 4, 1967, and do that without any negotiations, no. peace treaty, without establishing final and secure peace, without equality with other states in terms of its navigation rights, without negotiating and setting up secured and recognized territorial borders, without forcing the other party to stop supporting subversive activities and, above all, without ending this 20 years old conflict. Thus the so-called “liberation of Palestine” will be achieved in due course.

If until last week the slightest illusion regarding Egyptian moderation and constructive attitude still subsisted, it was ruined by President Nasser’s speech of July 23 this year. This speech confirmed, in the most categorical manner, our own analysis. It provides a clear and accurate picture of United Arab Republic’s policy. Cairo is absolutely and inflexibly against peace. United Arab Republic is against any agreement, against negotiations, against the recognition of Israel’s sovereignty. This speech says that even if Israel would withdraw to pre-1967 war lines, the “liberation of Palestine” remains an objective to be achieved. This expression has always been synonymous with the “destruction of Israel” and President Nasser fully confirmed this in his previous speeches.

There is no. need to add that this policy statement is equivalent to an unequivocal rejection of the spirit and letter of the resolution of the U.N. Security Council of November 1967. With this speech, entirely permeated with hatred, belligerence and aggression, President Nasser assumes full responsibility for maintaining tension in our region and for the stalemate of all efforts for establishing peace.

In this unfortunate situation, I have no alternative but to emphasize the positive aspects of our policy that remained constant.

In December 1967, Ambassador Jarring submitted the United Arab Republic our detailed proposal of the agenda for a peace conference under its auspices.

During all the months of Jarring mission, the Egyptians were informed about our attitude towards the Resolution of the Security Council and our conceptions regarding its application. I have not the slightest doubt that President Nasser precisely knows our statements regarding the steps that we consider as essential for its application (negotiations, agreement on all points of the Resolutions, including on the final borders routes, incorporating this agreement in a peace treaty, an agreement on the method to implement what was agreed, signing a peace treaty that would automatically end the state of hostility and establish official peace).

Therefore, President Nasser cannot claim to truly not know what we want: formal establishment of peace; drawing accepted territorial borders, recognized and secure; guaranteed free navigation of all ships, including those of Israel through the Suez Canal and Strait of Tiran; engaging the two parties, by signature, in an explicit permanent mutual

271

recognition in respect for national sovereignty and identity; establishment of a state of stable peace, mutually guaranteed.

I believe that President Nasser knows that for us Sinai issue is inseparably connected to two other matters – full freedom of navigation and opposition to the transformation, once again, of Sinai desert in an area of aggression and conflict. We acknowledge that solving the refugees problem will have to constitute an essential part of any regulations. We showed Ambassador Jarring, in January, that we are willing to confer this issue a privileged place on the priority list to be negotiated in a peace conference.

Thus, the substance of the problems between the United Arab Republic and us it is not, objectively, so complex that could dismiss any possibility of settlement. I believe that the problem does not consist of the United Arab Republic’s lack of knowledge with regard to our substantive proposals. The real problem lies in the fundamental intentions of Egypt on key issues like peace agreements, recognition, navigation and negotiations.

The idea that Israel has to abide its life and survival to the principles of the Conference in Khartoum is certainly inadmissible. Cairo cannot bring together the principles of the Khartoum with the peace with Israel. Egypt must choose one or the other. Mr. Prime Minister, if you could promote all these to all the leaders of the United Arab Republic, you will be making a great service to regional and international peace. In addition, if you can help us make contact, formally and without the slightest advertising, with the representatives of the United Arab Republic in Bucharest or anywhere else, we will do our best to make it a fruitful one. Instead of engaging in public disputes, the United Arab Republic and Israel should commit to the task of discreetly establishing peace.

Although the political statements of President Nasser, which we have mentioned, do not contribute to an optimistic assessment of the situation, we encourage Ambassador Jarring to continue his efforts. At the same time, as we already mentioned above, we continue to consider the possibilities of progress with Jordan and work closely with Ambassador Jarring to open the perspective of an agreement for establishing a fair and lasting peace.

Please allow me, Mr. Prime Minister, to keep you apprised of any evolutions in the situation and I would be pleased to have the opportunity to discuss about all these with you, personally, at the place and in the manner that you may consider appropriate.

Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the assurance of my highest consideration.


180

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA , WITH

ELIEZER DORON, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING ROMANIA’S INTERVENTION IN THE RELEASE OF THE CREW OF THE PLANE DETAINED BY THE ALGERIAN AUTH ORITIES

No. 05/004078 August 19, 1968, Bucharest Top Secret On the 17th this year, the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Macovescu

met Eliezer Doron, Israeli Minister in Bucharest, at his request. The meeting lasted 15 minutes. Mircea Mironenco, attaché within Vth Department – Relations assisted.

272

Eliezer Doron said that he solicited this meeting to reiterate the request previously addressed that the Romanian side to help Israel in freeing the crew and the airplane detained by Algeria.

He is considering in this context the visit of the Minister Corneliu Mănescu in Algeria1. In this regard, one should inform Mr. Corneliu Mănescu about the request of the Israeli side so that, using his influence, his good offices, to intervene by the Algerian government for a favourable resolution of this case, in accordance with the international law and morality.

Prolonging the existing condition only increases the tension in the area. He also said that the U.N. Secretary General, U Thant, as well as France, Italy and Denmark’s governments were very active on this matter, approaching the Algerian side.

Algeria has made it clear in his response, both to U. Thant, as well as to the Italian Ambassador in Algeria, that it wants to solve the matter of the detained Israeli plane and crew, but as solution it proposed that Israel would make an exchange for the Algerian military planes captured during the war in June, last year. Israel cannot accept such an arrangement.

In conclusion, E. Doron reiterated his request that the Romanian government, Minister Corneliu Mănescu, in his dual capacity as President of the U.N. General Assembly and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Romania, to use his good offices and call on the Algerian side to resolve as quickly as possible the matter of the Israeli plane and crew, in the spirit of humanitarianism.

George Macovescu assured the Israeli Minister that he would inform the Romanian government and Mr. Corneliu Mănescu of his request.

He said that the problem was complicated by the decision to boycott the Algerian airports by the International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Association (IFALPA), these measures were undertaken just when the Algerian government was on the eve of positively resolving the incident created.

He expressed his opinion that the solving of this problem is just a matter of time.


181


ISRAELI COMMENTS ON THE SITUATION IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND ROMANIA’S POSITION

No. 85204 August 19, 1968, Tel Aviv, 14.00 h Top Secret. Urgent Among Tel Aviv Foreign Affairs Ministry circles and diplomats, there are rumours that

the risk of an armed intervention of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia has not yet passed. The negative response given by Czechoslovakia to the veiled ultimatum of the Soviet

Union even more toughen the Russian and Polish leaders, said Marmor, Deputy Director within the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

To put pressure on the Czech leaders, they requested that the bilateral meetings to be held in Moscow while Dubček1 wants the talks to take place in Prague.

1 The Romanian Foreign Affairs Minister met his Algerian homologue on August 20, 1968, for discussions. 1 Alexander Dubček (1921-1992), Czechoslovakian politician, during his youth member of the Communist Party, participated at the resistance movement from the Second World War; member of the C.C. of Slovak Communist

273

Soviet leaders are afraid to go to Prague. They anticipate that the Czech people will organize hostile demonstrations against them. Next, Siroski, a Brazilian diplomat, said that the Czechoslovak communists, besides the support of Yugoslavia and Romania, and the support of the Communist Parties of Italy, England, France and U.S. and many others, benefit from the support of the communist and labour parties of Latin America and the supporting view of U.S., Canada, and England as well as of others governments.

Moshe Dak [?], Deputy Director of the Consular Department within Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, during a discussion with me, he said that as far as he knows (based on rumours), the visit of the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs in Bucharest2 had as purpose the preparation of a mutual assistance pact between Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Also, there are rumours, said Dak Moshe, according to which Comrade Nicolae Ceauşescu will pay a visit to Prague3 to reiterate his support to the Czech leaders.

I have replied that Romania fully supports Dubček’s policy and the one of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and it is against any interference in the internal affairs of the Czech Communist Party or government and advocates the well-known principles: non-interference, sovereignty, independence, mutual assistance.

Also, in the same context, the events from Czechoslovakia were commented by Jacob [Yaakov] Moris and Michael Prafai, both Deputy Directors within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

(Ss) N. Ionescu


182


REGARDING ISRAELI REACTIONS TO THE ARMED INTERVENTI ON OF THE WARSAW PACT IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

No. 85242 August 23, 1968, Tel Aviv, 19.00 h Top Secret The Israeli government convened in an extraordinary meeting to discuss the significance

of the events from Czechoslovakia and issued the following press release: “The Israeli government expresses his concern towards the invasion and military

occupation of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia1. This action constitutes a flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter.

Party (1958-1962), of Central Committee of the Presidium of the Czechoslovak (1962-1967), First Secretary of the Czechoslovak Communist Party (1968-1969), artisan of the “Czechoslovak road to socialism”. Ambassador in Ankara (1970). President of the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia (1989-1992). 2 In the period July 1-3, 1968, Jiři Hajeck, S.R. of Czechoslovakia’s Foreign Affairs Minister paid an official visit to Romania. 3 The official visit to S.R. of Czechoslovakia took place between August 15-17, 1968. On this occasion, on August 16, 1968, was signed the Treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia and the Socialist Republic of Romania, for a period of 20 years. See also 1968. The Prague Spring (January 1968-April 1969), ed. D. Preda, Bucharest, 2009. 1 On August 20,1968, around 23.00 h, troops of the socialist countries members of the Warsaw Treaty (Soviet Union, D.R. of Germany, P.R. of Poland, P.R. of Hungary and P.R. of Bulgaria), except Romania, entered on the territory of the S.R. of Czechoslovakia, without facing any armed resistance.

274

The sacrosanct principles of political independence and territorial integrity, peaceful coexistence and non-interference in the internal life of states, the right of all countries, either large or small to safety and freedom, the principles that represent the foundation of any relation between states, were brutally violated.

Israeli government expresses its indignation towards the invasion, which shook the very foundations of the existence of peoples’ origin.

Participation of some soldiers [Germans] to the invasion and conquest, this time as part of the Warsaw Pact forces2, brings back disturbing memories.

Israeli government joins all peace and freedom-loving nations of the world to put an end to the invasion and restore the independence and sovereignty of the Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia” .

Meanwhile, Israel continues the rallies of solidarity with the Czechoslovakian people, events organized by political parties of all political colours and by youth organizations. The Legation continues to receive congratulations and praises for the principled position adopted by the party and state leadership of the Socialist Republic of Romania to support the Czechoslovakian people3.

(Ss) C. Dumitrăchescu


2 On August 21, 1968, Central Committee’s Presidium of the C.P. of Czechoslovakia released a statement saying that the entering of the 5 socialist states troops represents a violation of the fundamental provisions of international law. At the same time, T.A.S.S. Agency was empowered to state that “party and state activists from Czechoslovakia requested the Soviet Union and other allied states to grant the Czechoslovakian sister people immediate assistance, including armed forces”. The statement of T.A.S.S. Agency was again denied by the Note addressed by the Czechoslovakian Foreign Affairs Ministry to the governments of the Soviet Union, D.R. of Germany, P.R. of Poland, P.R. of Hungary and P.R. of Bulgaria clearly stating that “never, neither him [Foreign Affairs Minister – our ref.] nor other constitutional body of this country have consented to the invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. The occupation of Czechoslovakia by force violates U.N. Charter, the Warsaw Treaty and the fundamental principles of international law. Through the collective actions of the five states, there was committed an attack to the very independence of the S.R. of Czechoslovakia and its territorial integrity was violated unprecedentedly”. 3 On August 21, 1968, in Bucharest, during a joint meeting of the Government, State Council and Central Committee of Romanian Communist Party, was discussed the situation emerged in Czechoslovakia. The press statement released to the public stated that the entering of the troops of the five socialist countries on Czechoslovakian territory “represents a fragrant violation of the national sovereignty of a sister socialist state, free and independent, a violation of the principles on which the relations between socialist countries are founded and of the unanimously recognized provisions of international law “. See, detailed, Mihai Retegan, 1968. From spring to autumn, Bucharest, 1998, pp. 277-295.

275

183


DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH YIGAL ALLON, VICE-PRESIDENT OF

THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT, ON BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION IN THE REGION

No. 85312 October 30, 1968, Tel Aviv, 14.00 h Top Secret. Urgent On October 29, this year, accompanied by comrade [Constantin] Dumitrăchescu,

Secretary I, I paid a courtesy visit to the Vice-president of the Israeli Council of Ministers, Yigal Allon.

I have briefly presented the situation of the bilateral relations, the possibilities of developing economic relations between our countries and our position on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Thanking me for the visit, Y. Allon spoke about three major issues, making very clear that he was well prepared for this visit.

1. Romanian-Israeli relations He said that during the events in Czechoslovakia, he was in U.S. and then in England.

He met politicians of all political colours, from the U.S. President and the English Prime Minister to big newspaper publishers (“New York Times” and “The Times”). Everyone praised Romania for its consistent and courageous policy.

The full path covered from resisting to the Soviet Union’s pressures to sever the relations with Israel, the fact that it did not mechanically copied the example of other socialist countries and up to the position criticizing the invasion in Czechoslovakia, have increased Romania’s prestige in the international arena.

The cooperation of the Romanian delegations with those of Israel within international organizations, the brilliant way in which Corneliu Mănescu, Minister of Foreign Affairs, chaired the U.N. General Assembly and especially in the Middle East matter, are just some examples reinforcing the good relations established between our countries, in the interest of the two peoples.

Therefore, Y. Allon openly wishes to emphasize that Israel did not get the chance to make up for what Romania has done for their state and that Romania should never feel alone, because it has in Israel a sincere friend and by saying that he means that Israel is not alone either, it has doors wide opened to the most influential politicians in the western world.

Israel and its friends are always ready to help us in any field. He firmly believes that the good relations will develop in the interest of both our peoples and that, as far as he is concern, he will do everything to help developing the relations in all areas of activity.

2. Regarding Yugoslavia, Y. Allon said: The events in Czechoslovakia lined up the moment of restoring the diplomatic relations

between Yugoslavia and Israel. Tito and Nasser, who had managed to gather around them the third world, were like brothers.

276

With the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Nasser betrayed Tito, usurped the concept of the third world.

Soviet military fleet in the Mediterranean has as overall objective the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it can rather act in the Adriatic, because we cannot be intimidated and we do not believe as long as the U.S.S.R. does not want war with the U.S. will not intervene. Therefore, we believe it would be in the interest of Yugoslavia to re-establish relations with us, thus rewarding Nasser for the treason and warning and indirectly paying back the Soviet Union.

The Israeli government would appreciate if, under the new circumstances, the Romanian government would intervene to the Yugoslav government to speed up the restoring of the diplomatic relations with Israel. This could be beneficial for Israel, as well as for Yugoslavia.

3. Israeli-Arab conflict

Israel will not do anything to provoke incidents that can turn into large-scale military actions and neither will let itself be provoked by the Arabs.

A. Eban speech at the U.N., as well as his speech in the Israeli Parliament (October 23 this year), represents the official policy line of the government.

The bellicose speeches in the Israeli Parliament, as well as those of other officials, should not be taken into consideration.

There are extremists in Israel, just like there are in the Arab countries. Israel is making efforts through G. Jarring, as well as directly to the Arabs to reach an agreement.

When Israel will have settled secure and final borders, enshrined in a treaty of peace with its neighbours, it will withdraw its troops from the lawfully current cease-fire line, in accordance with the June 1967 Resolution of the Security Council. The withdrawal of the troops before signing a peace treaty is suicide for the State of Israel.

There is hope, on long term, to reach some acceptable negotiations and solutions, as the Egyptian military clerks and intellectual circles believe that the Arab countries cannot defeat Israel and will not be allowed to destroy it as a state.

The incidents from the Suez Canal are the actions of Egyptian extremists who want to destroy any chance of reaching a settlement by negotiation. Egypt last actions in the Canal have discouraged it and complicated again the recent initiatives.

However, Israel is optimistic about the future, reason will prevail in the end, perhaps first with Jordan and then with Egypt.

Observation: Y. Allon was valued in the diplomatic circles and those of the Israeli left, as an

extremist, as a tough factor in the relation with the Arabs. The discussion with him revealed a certain change in his position. He was extremely glad that I officially met him in his new position and spoke in a

friendly and honest tone. It seems that after his visit to the U.S., Great Britain and other Western countries, he became more malleable in terms of the conflict with the Arabs, and the Prime Minister Eshkol entrusted him increasingly more governmental duties.

During the last couple of days, he chaired the meetings of the Council of Ministers’ cabinet. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol. 2/1968, f. 105-108.

277

184

MESSAGE OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, SENT TO LEVY E SHKOL,

PRIME MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING TH E POSITION OF THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT TO THE PROBLEMS FROM THE NE AR EAST

AND THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CON FLICT

November 15, 1968, Bucharest

Mr. Prime Minister, The message that you kindly sent me in August1 through Mr. Eliezer Doron, your

Plenipotentiary Minister in Bucharest, got our attention, giving us the chance to better understand the position of the Israeli government as regards the situation in the Near East.

First, I would like to thank you for the fine words about Romania and the foreign policy of its government.

Not having any particular interest in the Near East, Romania bases its position regarding the conflict in this region on the realities subsequent to the evolutions of post-war world, on the existence of independent Arab states and of the State of Israel, on the principles that must govern the relations between states. Our position in this matter is based on the responsibility that each country should has towards world peace.

In the Near East, as in other parts of the world, the war has shown its most painful consequences, caused human and material losses, aggravated even more the tension between states and peoples of the region, created even higher impediments in the way of solving the differences between these countries, enhancing the overall risks of endangering peace.

We believe that this region has suffered enough dearly paid experiences for over two decades to prove the need to approach the relations between states under a new constructive manner.

Based on these considerations, we have continuously promoted the idea that the relations between Near East states must evolve to gradually lessen the tension so that to create an appropriate climate to fair and constructive solutions that respects the right to an independent existence.

Therefore, we carefully noted the message that Israel instead of engaging in public disputes should persistently pursue peace.

As you already know, our country actively militated within and outside U.N. bodies to identify and promote new ways and methods to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, in an acceptable way to all stakeholders, firmly standing, along with many other states, for the permanent elimination of the use of force in the relations between the countries of this region.

We contributed to the adoption of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967, during the XXII Session of the U.N. General Assembly, after extensive consultations conducted with patience, calm and perseverance.

We believe that this resolution, which consecrate the essential principles of the political settlement of the situation created (inadmissibility of the annexation of territory as a result of military operations and ensuring that all states in the respective region have the right to existence, within secure and recognized borders), leaded to the creation of an international mechanism, a proper framework to evolve to a new stage, the one of creating a working

1 See doc. no. 179.

278

atmosphere for the realistic approach of the situation in the area and taking concrete actions to solve the complex problems that the countries in the region are facing.

I have firmly and consistently stated, under the proper forms and the right circumstances, that for reducing the tension still existing in the Near East, it is necessary to immediately implement this resolution.

That is why we were pleased to note the part of the message referring to your government’s initiatives to cooperate with Ambassador Jarring.

We were also pleased to hear that you remained in contact with the authorities of the Kingdom of Jordan.

You have shared, Mr. Prime Minister, under the pages of the message, your opinion that the months that have passed since the military operations of 1967 were ceased, little progress towards a peaceful settlement was achieved. You have also shared your concern for some negative manifestations of immobilism and lack of flexibility.

We also learned with regret that along with the efforts to identify ways and solutions to establish peaceful coexistence between states in the region, some actions have occurred, inconsistent with this purpose, which, per contra, maintain the tension in the region and risk to generate a deadlock in Ambassador Jarring mission and activity.

The uncompromising positions and rigid statements, especially those emanating from decisional factors, are not conducive to creating the necessary climate to find the solutions for implementing the provisions of the Security Council Resolution of November 1967.

We believe that a prerequisite, a focus point to imprint the relations between the Near East countries a new course, a new direction, is the thorough observance of the ceasefire agreement.

In this context, we regret to note that, parallel to the efforts towards finding a peaceful and lasting solution for the disputed issues, on both sides, serious violations of the ceasefire agreement, massive armed attacks with loss of human life and great damage to property have occurred.

Violence and armed confrontations occurring after the cessation of fire, regardless of their motivation, were far from contributing to the regulation of any of the contentious issues and represented just as much alienation from the goal of establishing peace, thus increasing the instability and insecurity and influencing the new direction that the relations between countries in the region should go. Therefore, together with other peace-loving states and some segments of the international public opinion, we expressed our concerns and disapproval of such acts of violation of the ceasefire, wherever they may arise.

We understand the need to exchange the state of belligerence between Israel and Arab states with one of peacefully coexistence.

I took note, from the message content, of the phases that you consider as essential for the implementation of the Security Council’s November Resolution.

As you may know, since the first days after the ceasefire decision was taken, we expressed our opinion that for normalizing the situation in the Near East, some prerequisites are essential: withdrawal of the Israeli troops from the occupied territories, ensuring the conditions for the free existence and unhindered development of each state in this part of the world and solving the problem of Arab refugees from Palestine.

An effective method to resolve the disputed issues is, of course, to conduct negotiations with all stakeholders based on sovereign equality of rights.

At the same time, from the contacts with leading Arab personalities, we noted that the Arab side was against direct talks, reluctant to participate in direct and explicit contractual arrangements with Israel.

279

It is our opinion that to rigidly insist to a particular procedure for a certain scheduling of the phases of peaceful settlement of a complicated situation, could jeopardize key objectives, compromise the essence of the problems, due to procedural matters.

We believe that for the moment, when among large circles of the public opinion in the Arab countries are dominated by feelings of humiliation and defeat; when hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs are living in difficult conditions far from their homes; inflexibly insisting on direct negotiations may have opposite results than the final goal - the peaceful settlement of the situation in the Near East, the establishment of relations of peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Arab countries.

Our attention was caught by the connection that your message makes between the matter of occupied Arab territories (ceasefire lines) and the phases that you consider necessary and essential for achieving a peaceful settlement, and the statement that, if Israel would evacuate the ceasefire lines before establishing a permanent peace, based on secure and recognized borders, it would endanger its very existence.

This position does not seem consistent with the principles, which must govern the relations between sovereign and independent states.

In today’s conditions, when dozens of new states contribute to promoting the rule of law in international relations, situations arising from the use of force do not offer reliable answers to complicated questions. The attempt to obtain political advantages or of any other kind, from situations generated by the use of force, is likely to create a dangerous precedent and attract similar retaliation.

In terms of practical efficiency, it does not seem realistic to expect that the representatives of some sovereign states, which have occupied territories, to sit at the negotiating table.

We believe that maintaining foreign territories, regardless of motivation, it will not strengthen Israel’s security, but rather will be a constant risk to its security and independence.

In light of these considerations, we still stand for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from

the occupied territories, withdrawal of all troops to the existing limits before the beginning of the conflict, patient-actions in realistic spirit, in order to implement the Resolution of the Security Council of November 1967, starting with respecting the fundamental interests of each state in the Near East region, using a broader range of methods and procedures, advancing step by step toward the ultimate goal.

We sincerely believe that a prerequisite to successful negotiations is to ensure full equality of rights between interlocutors, eliminating the urge to impose solutions or exploit for this purpose advantageous military situations.

I fully share your point of view that the substance of the problems between Israel and Arab countries is objectively so complex that eliminates any possibility of settlement. We express our belief that the method of patiently elaborating solutions, the respect for individual personality of each state, based on sovereign equality of rights in the relations between states and the introduction of a conduct based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, offers, also for the Near East, the guarantee of moving towards an effective and lasting peace and prosperity for its people.

Therefore, I salute the reiteration of the fact that your government encourages Ambassador Jarring to continue his efforts and collaborates with him for creating the prospects of an agreement to establish a fair and lasting peace. We welcomed the statements made by your Minister of Foreign Affairs during the current session of the U.N. General Assembly, in the sense that the Israeli government is ready to exchange views on issues of

280

substance, through Ambassador Jarring with any Arab government2, ready to establish a fair and lasting peace with Israel.

As far as we are concerned, we use this opportunity to express our hope and sincere desire for a faster peaceful resolution in this part of the world.

As previously, we will spare no. effort to bring our contribution to finding solutions based on justice and wisdom, inspired by the higher interests of peace.

I allow myself to express my belief that it is useful to keep in contact, to have a constant exchange of views on the evolutions and the situation in the Near East.

Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the expression of my highest consideration.


185

GENERAL REPORT DRAFTED BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI BILATERAL RELATIONS IN 1968

[December 11], 1968, Tel Aviv

1. Evolution of our country’s relations with Israel in 1968 Just like in the second half of 1967, Israel continued, throughout 1968, to carry out a

vivid political activity to bring the world public opinion on his side. The four points plan of A. Eban, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs since April, followed by the 9 points plan, presented on October 8 to the U.N. General Assembly, aimed at clarifying and trying to convince the public opinion about the peace intentions of this country. At the same time, announcing the Great Powers and the Arab countries that Israel will not implement the first part of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967 until the Arab countries will not give effect to the second part of the same resolution. Actions aiming the recognition of Israel existence by the Arab countries, with secure and recognized borders, were highlighted in all the documents of the political parties, the speeches of government officials, in order to generate a feeling of safety and righteousness among the Israeli population in relation to the action of not withdrawing the troops from the current ceasefire lines, without the fulfilment of this goal – secured and recognized borders.

Starting from the clairvoyant position that of our party and state is in fact pursuing, in terms of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the political situation, our office has focused its entire activity on detailed knowledge of the position of this country in relation to the conflict. Thus, our office has carried an extensive lobby among government officials, political party leaders, influential people from various circles, among diplomats, succeeding to transmit to the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, on permanent basis, political information, reports and summaries, which have contributed to a better understanding of the political situation in Israel and the Middle East countries.

Reciprocal visits also contributed to a better understanding of the two countries’ attitudes towards the conflict. The visit of the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs,

2 On November 7, 1968, through Gunnar Jarring, between the Foreign Affairs Ministers of Egypt and Israel took place an exchange of letters regarding the Near East situation. The letter of the Egyptian Minister was raising two major problems 1) if Israel intends to apply the provisions of the Resolution of the Security Council; 2) if Israel intends to withdraw its troops from the occupied territories. The Israeli Minister underline the fact that his country is willing to discuss with Egypt, through Gunnar Jarring; the withdrawal of the Israeli troops being closely related to the setting up safe boarders, recognized by both countries.

281

G. Macovescu, in Israel, as well as the visit of Gideon Rafael, Director General of Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, led to a clear understanding of the positions of the two countries on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the mutual understanding of the possibilities of extending these relations and the potential contribution of S.R. of Romania in determining the parties engaged in the conflict to reach an agreement. The exchange of messages between the leaderships of the Romanian and Israeli governments have elucidated a number of political issues, with a bilateral character, but mostly related to international affairs and the situation in the Middle East.

The Israeli side always tried to assign a strong political character to the bilateral relations, to the visits related to different matters, both in our country and in Israel. In this context, it is worth mentioning, also, the positive attitudes of the political, government and media circles towards different political events that occurred or marked our country. Thus, the plenums of the Romanian Communist Party’s Central Committee, the sessions of the Grand National Assembly, marking the Semi-centenary of the Union of Transylvania with Romania has been widely debated by the Israeli press, on numerous pages.

The speeches of the Secretary General of Romanian Communist Party’s Central Committee, comrade Nicolae Ceauşescu, are vividly commented in Israel and occasioned by the events in S.R. of Czechoslovakia, both press and radio as well as some spontaneous events have highlighted and praised the courage and principled leadership wherewith our country disputed the thesis of the invasion. The press conferences of the Head of mission, the political articles distributed by our office are followed with great interest and benefit of large space columns in the media of all languages.

In the field of economic relations, in 1968 trade experienced a significant increase, compared to 1967, and for the end of this year the following achievements are foreseen (amount in thousands USD):

1967 1968

• Export 35 857 74 800 • Import 27 839 64,000

From the foregoing analysis, it results that the exports increased by 2.1 and imports 2.3

times. Export increase was owed to the market penetration of machinery and equipment (18% out of the grand total) and chemical products (2 times), furniture (4 times) more than in 1967. In terms of import increase, it was mainly owed to mineral products (phosphates), textiles and chemicals, as well as buses and refrigeration vehicles.

As products sold for the first time on the Israeli market one can mention: tractors (1150), machine tools, detoxan electric motors, caustic soda, acetone, steel profile, oil, fibreboards. Achievement level is located below the contracts signed, 85,000 le in currency against 75,000 lei in currency made. These failures are due to: detoxan – poor quality, synthetic rubber – an improved quality is required that cannot be produced this year, piping systems – failure to deliver on term, sugar – lack of product, meat – acceptance rejections, furniture – failure to deliver on term. To all these ads up the incapacity of Constanta harbour to load the merchandise in time. In addition, our industry could not provide some goods demanded on the Israeli market.

For the first time an exhibition of Romanian goods was organized which, besides being successful, was also profitable in terms of currency value. Also, for the first time, S.R. of Romania attended the International Fair in Tel Aviv.

This year the cooperation with Israeli companies for exporting Romanian products on third markets was improved. Thus, furniture was sold in the U.S. Federal Republic Germany and Africa; tractors in Ethiopia as well as other African countries, and currently we attending

282

with an Israeli company to an auction of 500 freight cars in Uruguay. From the cooperation objectives, so far, results were achieved only in agriculture (irrigation of 5,000 ha) in Ialomiţa County, and in industrial and chemistry field, negotiations are in progress.

In line with cultural relations and propaganda, one can show that this year, although there was no. cultural exchanges program between the two countries, the number of cultural-artistic groups performing in Israel was doubled. Thus, have come to Israel a troupe from Estrada Theatre, the Jewish State Theatre, a troupe from the National Theatre, 4 soloists and two famous folk fiddlers. We were pleased to welcome all these, which were successful, media and art critics have advertised them extensively, thus contributing to the promotion of Romanian performing arts in this country.

On different occasions, in several Israeli cities, there were organized Romanian exhibitions sent by I.R.R.C.S.* and in the Jewish Encyclopaedia and other publications alike, the Office introduced correct materials and biographies of party and state leaders.

A number of scientists, from different fields in our country, have participated in some international congresses and symposia held in Israel. The value of the delegations sent, academicians, doctors, men of culture, brought an important contribution to the affirmation of Romanian science across borders, while promoting the S.R. of Romania in Israel.

2. Our office activity in the field of politics, economics, cultural, mass media and

consular

a. Politics: Tel Aviv office monitored, prepared and informed the leadership of the Foreign Affairs Ministry on the visits in Israel of: comrade G. Macovescu, First Deputy Minister; the Minister of Health, Y. Barzilai in the S.R. of Romania; Gideon Rafael, General Director within Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, the delegation of Israeli union leadership, etc. Both previously, as well as after these visits, the office’s diplomats obtained some information, which have led to a better informing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At all levels, the office’s diplomats have connections with various Israeli cabinet ministers, with General Directors, directors and space secretaries, with whom they have interesting talks, all contributing to a better understanding of the internal situation and of the Israeli foreign policy and of the events in the area. There are good relationships also among the diplomatic corps, from where there were also obtained interesting information, which in conjunction with those obtained from government officials, gave us an even more extensive understanding of the political situation of the Arab-Israel conflict. Following the contacts with the diplomatic circles, the level of information increased on various African, Asian and European matters, contributing to the realization of governmental delegations exchanges with Central African Republic. Besides our informing from those with whom we come in contact, I constantly sought to actively promote our party and state’s policy, explaining to the interlocutors the principled and consistent position of the Romanian Communist Party on important international issues, as well as those of domestic policy.

The relations with the leaders of the political parties in Israel were extended, succeeding to establish the first direct contact between Romanian Communist Party and MAPAM Party and between our countries trade union’s leaderships.

In addition to an operative informing, the Office prepared and sent to the MFA political reports on: Israeli Communist Party schism, organizing of the Sohnut and Jewish Agency, emigration of Romanian origin Jewish from Israel; trends present within the government coalition to solve the aftermath of Arab-Israeli armed conflict, the issue of Palestinian refugees after the war of June 1967. There were also elaborated political information notes, meeting and discussion notes. Thus, all the objectives in this line have been met. * Romanian Institute for Cultural and Scientific Relations.

283

We believe that in terms of the information policy, the office has paid too much weight on the political aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict; sometimes neglecting some aspects of domestic policy that, if reported, would better complemented our information and contributed more to our understanding of the political situation in Israel and the region.

b. Economics. The Head of the Mission recently paid more attention to economic issues, trade, Romanian-Israeli economic cooperation. According to the directions coming the party and state and from the two ministries (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Trade and Economy), the Head of the Office controlled and held regular meetings with economic agency workers, encouraging them to make greater efforts to achieve the export-import plan. Repeatedly, the Head of the office intervened by Israeli Ministers of resort, some officials within the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs and Finance, so that the Israeli side to respond to some urgent matters or to allocate funds for the purchase of Romanian products.

The Office has had a decisive contribution to our country’s participation at the International Fair in Tel Aviv and especially in organizing the sale exhibition of Romanian products, given that the economic agency was pessimistic about the success of these actions. One can say that the two fairs have had an important contribution to the promotion and penetration of Romanian products on the Israeli market, thus boosting our exports in this country. It is worth noting that since this spring, direct air connections between the two countries have been established, our planes having clients on an on-going basis, making large amounts in foreign currency. Regards tourism, the Office took the initiative, organized several actions, press conferences, stimulating tourism development throughout the year. Compared to last year, tourism from Israel to Romania has increased considerably; our country being visited by over 8,000 Israelis.

According to the Office’s work plan, this year have been prepared reports on the following subjects: Israeli economy after the conflict in 1967; forms of cooperation practiced in Israel, the legislation regulating this field, information about our attendance at the International Fair and Sale Exhibition.

Regarding the economic agency, we would like to inform you that for almost 10 months, the former Head of the agency had a recalcitrant attitude towards the direction, control and support that he had to offer in terms of economic problems and to increase sales of Romanian products in Israel. His recalling will contribute to the healing of the environment of a principled and fruitful cooperation between the agency and office. We are confident that the new situation and the normal existing relations will spur even more trade, in Israel there are still unexplored possibilities for developing economic relations with our country.

c. Culture: Cultural activity is based on the work plan of the Legation Cultural and the instructions of the Relations Directorate of the MFA, since between our countries there is no. agreement or cultural exchange program. However, through the Israeli manager we succeeded to bring to this country a number of artistic groups, which besides the advertising effect, made tens of thousands of dollars, in currency, on top of the sufficient daily allowance that the artists receive in Israel. This is thanked to the Romanian native audience who attended, in large numbers, the Romanian language shows. The Office selected, from an impressive number of managers, the most influential and fair one to organize a series of performances that brought O.S.T.A.* over 60,000 dollars. This year, representative troupes of State Theatre came to Israel, with some of the best artists, which performances were attended by high-level officials, like the Prime Minister, ministers and other important dignitaries of Israeli political, parliamentary, cultural and scientific field. The Jewish State Theatre though it has been successful, it did not surpassed the troupes, by either revenue volume or spectators. The public preferred more the Romanian art and folklore (due to Romania nostalgia) than the

* State Office for Artistic Tours – our ref.

284

classical Jewish one. Estrada Theatre’s troupe, with the show “Joy Parade”, also enjoyed success. Note that young singers, unknown by Israel public also enjoyed a real success. In all these occasions, the office invited heads of diplomatic missions and diplomats who have praised the artistic value and gave us the opportunity to expand the relations with them. Regarding the relations between the two academies, we would like to mention that they continued, the exchange of materials and prints developed, and a member of the Academy of Sciences in Israel visited our country and invited a delegation of the Romanian Academy in Israel.

On line of Israeli-Romanian Friendship Association, the Office, for the first time, succeeded to expand its leadership by involving representatives of political parties and mass organizations, removing the association from under the auspices of I.C.P, which due to the schism it split started to become the apple of discord between the two factions.

Since the second half of this year, the Association became a representative body to the value of the relations and prestige enjoyed by our country in the international arena. The new President of the association visited S.R. of Romania this year.

The association leadership consists of ministers, MPs, heads of political parties of all colors, including those of I.C.P, men of art, science and culture, renown both in Israel and abroad. Occasioned by the National Day of our country, the association has organized exhibitions and festive gatherings with artistic programs that have enjoyed a lot of success. Moreover, the presence in Israel of the delegates led by academics and other Romanian representative personalities in the chemistry, medicine, biochemistry and agriculture field, whom through presentation of papers, conferences, scientific achievements have promoted our country’s achievements in these areas. All of them were talked to and guided as to focus on political issues and how to best exploit their presence in research institutes, laboratories and during the contacts with Israeli and foreign experts, participating in international meetings.

In the context of the extending Romanian culture and art, the office organized the restoration of a set of S.F. and literature books to Tehnion Institute in Haifa and a photo and painting exhibitions.

I the period we refer to, the Office prepared: a report on the organization of all the levels of education in Israel, brief on the performance of the shows delivered by Romanian artists, brief about the Friendship Association and the possibilities of establishing contacts between the libraries of the two countries. Compared to the past, in 1968, S.R. of Romania was represented in a series of bibliographies and encyclopaedias because of the direct deliver by the Office of recent Romanian materials and publications.

We note that, despite some successful actions, our office has not done enough to establish contacts with major publishers, have not yet been made translations of books in Hebrew and were not published enough materials in relation to the cultural existing potential.

d. Mass media: The working relations among Israeli and foreign journalists intensified, there have been introduced most of the publishers and owners of major newspapers and magazines, with whom there have established good relations. The presence of about 65 journalists to the three press conferences fully demonstrates the kind of relation that the office has with the journalists.

Last press conferences, on tourism and occasioned by the semi-centenary of the Union of Transylvania with Romania, were broadcasted almost completely by Israeli radio stations. In 1968, there were published in the Israeli media over 600 articles and reviews and 450 photos, mostly, these were delivered by the office or taken up from major foreign news agencies. Important weights have also the articles written by journalists or tourists visiting our country. This year, our country was by approximately 20 Israeli journalists from major newspapers and magazines. Only on the semi-centenary of the Union, there were published

285

6 articles written by personalities in the country and 2 by their own initiative, besides the 20 replays and comments. One can notice that, compared to previous years, in 1968, there were not published biased articles and news about our country. Articles with political, economic and cultural subject prevailed, while the scientific and social area was less covered.

Besides a series of briefings, notes of conversations with journalists, the office drafted reports on the Israeli mass media and others on the feedback in publications and local newspapers of major events (23 August, 30 December and so on).

e. Consular activity: We have solved a number of problems with consular character of the tourists coming from our country and those who visit S.R. of Romania. 764 consular requests were resolved required by various Israeli people, there were issued 624 visas, cashing in the total amount of 20,000 Israeli pounds (equivalent to 6,000 $). For the successions resolved, the amount of 1.800 $ was charged, transferred directly to the State Bank of S.R. of Romania and to a blocked account 1200 $ and 66049 Israeli pounds, which will be transferred as monthly rates. Other successions are pending for resolution, which will bring in currency. The Consular Department has worked to promote tourism, and for its work, O.N.T. Carpaţi thanked it in writing.

The two comrades handling consular issues studied better than in the past the Israeli law and emigration from Romania, drafting papers like: Israeli succession procedure, the status of foreigners in Israel, Israeli customs regime, Israeli law in terms of over flight, Israeli law in terms of passports and visas, consular relations of Israel with the main capitalist states; usages in terms of navigation, Israeli tourism and a total of 42 notes of conversation on consular and politics subject. To the volume of consular work, the potential of expanding, as well as to the foreign currency revenues shown above, it is necessary to continue maintaining the current scheme (a diplomat and a clerk).

3. Conclusions and proposals

We believe that, during this year, the bilateral relations were normal, marking an

increase, diversification in the economic, cultural, and media field. Political relations were intensified in terms of multilateral presentation and understanding of the position of our party and government by the Israeli side. Our office tried to promote within the large governmental and political circles and mass organizations, the ways in which our Government considers that the conflict resolution is possible in the current international situation. During all contacts, the Office diplomats insisted on the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the occupied territories, resolving disputed issues by negotiation and recognition of existing rights of every state in the region.

Israeli cabinet members, heads of political parties appreciate our country’s principled policy position towards the conflict, emphasizing the constant role that Romania can play in the convergence of the positions of the countries engaged in the conflict and the necessity of peace, taking into account the legitimate interests of the peoples in this region. At the same time, these circles have repeatedly said they cannot accept a phased resolution of the conflict, but only the integral application, as a whole, of the Security Council Resolution of November 22, 1967. The Office concluded that Israel will maintain the current status-quo, current ceasefire lines, it will not withdraw its troops from the occupied territories until the neighbouring Arab countries, or one of them, will accept negotiations so that to change the current geographic, political and military situation, by a peace treaty signed by the countries directly concerned. We intend to follow very carefully the evolution of Israel’s position, to note any new elements, their implications in solving the many contentious issues in dispute, of the occupied territories and the Palestinian matter, etc. Internally, we will evaluate the implications of right wing political parties regrouping, the establishment of alliances in view

286

of the future elections in the autumn of 1969 and of the political and social life phenomena of various castes among the Israeli population.

In the current political atmosphere, conducive to the development of our country’s relations with Israel, we note a significant increase in trade this year, both in terms of import as well as export, enhanced cooperation in agriculture and industry fields, and academic connections. In this context, the Israeli side, from the propaganda point of view, tried to pay a much greater importance to the improvement of the economic relations between the two countries, highlighting the merits of the Romanian government position to maintain and extend the relations with Israel after the war of June 1967.

The office tried constantly to moderate the propagandistic echoes related to the bilateral relations, being reserved in its actions and explaining, at the same time, during the contacts with government and economics officials that such an excess does not help the two countries, but it may rather be disadvantageous. We consider that this view began to be understood and accepted by most Israeli officials responsible in the political, economic and propaganda area. Together with the economic agency, we believe that we have to multiply our efforts so that, next year, the trade volume to increase, diversify, constantly insisting on selling a wide range of industrial and construction machinery. By better exploitation of relations within the M.F.A. and the economic circles so that we are able to determine the placement of Romanian products in Africa and Latin America through the Israeli companies.

In terms of the technical and scientific cooperation, we consider useful to pursue the exchanges of delegations, visits of scientists, given the high level of scientific research institutes and laboratories (chemistry, electronics, nuclear power, biochemistry, agriculture) and the multiple connections that they maintain with the most advanced research centres in the U.S., Canada, England, France and the Federal Republic Germany.

Cultural and artistic exchanges will be conducted, in 1969, in good condition, even if a bilateral agreement in this area was not signed. Troupes, artists, singers and theatre touring and so on, through managers, will ensure the both the propaganda side as well as the financial commitment in favour of our country. We consider that we need to pay closer attention to knowing and gaining on the immigrants of Romanian origin, which represents over 13% of the entire Israeli population. Of the many actions conducted by the Office among them, we concluded that an extensive propaganda action could be carried out among them, to make known the achievements of our country in the field of economics, culture, social, etc. The vast majority of Israeli citizens coming from Romania manifest a friendly, sincere attitude and appreciation towards our country and the leaders of our party and state. Actively participating in various gatherings that the Office has organized on political, historical and social events, they express strong feelings of nostalgia and promoting among Israeli public opinion our country’s political attitude on various current international issues and the achievements of the Romanian people at home. Previous proposals of the Office, to being send more propaganda materials in all areas, in Romanian, French and English, it becomes necessary unto the objectives we want to achieve next year among these categories of Israeli citizens.

Parallel to these activities, the office aims to better organize relations department, to broaden their circle among political, economic and parliamentary personalities and diplomats from African countries, Asian and Latin American. Although results were achieved in fructifying the relations, operative and by courier information increased compared to the past and for the next period, we will have to include a wider range of issues, to diversify it, so that in terms of quality to meet a substantial improvement.

(Ss) V. Georgescu


287

186



REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST

No. 05/00571 February 14, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On February 8, 1969, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, met

E. Doron, Israel’s Minister in Bucharest, at his request. Dumitru Curavale, Secretary II also attended. After an interchange of civilities, E. Doron expressed his concern regarding the

preliminary discussions between the representatives of the four Great Powers on the Middle East situation. At New York discussions, there are two parties who do not speak the same language: on one side, there is France and the Soviet Union, seeking to impose a solution to the countries in the region and on the other side, England and U.S.A., wanting to stimulate Jarring mission to bring together the parties involved in the conflict to sign a peace treaty. The first group intends to impose a solution, the second does not.

The Israeli minister said that General de Gaulle, who “sets up himself as advisor and prosecutor,” through his proposal aims to prove that France is a great power equal to U.S. and the Soviet Union and that it is consistent in assessing the events in the area, as since May 1967 stood for a conference of the four Great Powers, whose result will be to pressure small countries. He said that France, which established the embargo on the armament intended for Israel and the Soviet Union, who severed the diplomatic relations with its country, cannot be accepted as partners for the resolution solving conflict.

E. Doron said he was pleased with response of England and the U.S. to the French proposal, because the following conditions were set: talks under U.N. auspices, strengthening the role of Jarring mission to solve the problem, under the Security Council’s Resolution, talks at the level of the permanent representatives of the parties to the U.N.

George Macovescu asked about Israel intentions and their opinion regarding the position of the new U.S. Administration.

E. Doron said that, taking into account France proposal and the positive response of England and U.S. – who consider Middle East as part of their global policy and pursue the improvement of the relations with U.A.R. (re-engaging the diplomatic relations and the intent to meet Nasser half way, who does not want to depend on the Soviet Union) and France and reassume the dialogue with the Soviet Union – have accepted the solution envisioned in Paris.

At E. Doron question, if at the meeting in Timisoara, between comrade Nicolae Ceausescu and President I.B.Tito1 was approached also the Middle East problem, George Macovescu said that the leadership of the two delegations expressed their concern as regards the situation in the region, but, this matter was not particularly discussed. Now, we must focus on the phenomenon that was accentuated, namely the movement for Palestine freedom and, especially, the most active part of “Al-Fatah” organization, who states that, regardless the identified solution or the arrangements with the Arab countries, it will continue the fight. One

1 Meeting between the Presidents Nicolae Ceausescu and Iosip Broz Tito took place on February 1-2, 1969.

288

should consider that, if until now one could speak about a military aspect of this organization, today one should consider also the political one.

When asked how he sees this, E. Doron said that the Arab countries have created this organization, which, for the time being, represents the biggest threat to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and in the near future for Egypt, because soon they will not be able to master two military organizations.

In this context, he said that Nasser is a smart leader, but with an typical oriental political orientation as within one week he attended the Meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization, where he promised military support, condemned the Iraqi government attitude in relation to the execution by hanging of the Jews in Baghdad and gave an interview in which he advocated for a peace settlement in the region. We, added E. Doron, reiterate our wiliness to conclude a real peace, but at the same time, we declare that we are not afraid of terrorist actions and will defend ourselves. More than 90% of those who tried to cross our borders were killed, and the measures taken in the north of Jordan give hope that the number of infiltrations will decrease.

E. Doron said he had received a message from Gideon Rafael, where it is mentioned that there are about two months since he was told that the Romanian government approval for raising diplomatic relations between the Socialist Republic of Romania and Israel exist and since then they are waiting for the day when this would be made public. Therefore, he would like to know why the situation was not resolved so far. The Israeli Minister added that he read in “Scânteia” newspaper, the issue of February 8 this year, the news regarding the submission of letters of credence by the Romanian Ambassador to Baghdad.

George Macovescu said that the Romanian side position towards the problem remained the same one communicated by G. Raphael. Shortly, the situation will be examined, given the mutual interest. It should be noted, however, that the Israeli side is not entitled to ask why the respective press statement was has not been released to the media. As agreed, the publication of this decision is to be set by mutual agreement, on a mutually accepted date. It must be said that to this delay also contributed Israeli action against the civilian airport in Beirut.

E. Doron intervened, saying that if the Beirut action would not take place, the company “EI-AL” would have been liquidated. Now the terrorists understand that if “EI-AL” does not fly neither will the Arab aviation companies.

George Macovescu continued by asking his interlocutor to inform the Israeli authorities that there are no. reasons to misinterpret Romania’s position regarding the reciprocal raising of representation, but the right moment must be chosen.

Asking for permission to speak frankly, E. Doron related the following: Two years ago, I was sent to Romania in order to improve and develop the bilateral

relations in political, economic and cultural field. For starters, there had been a very favourable attitude from Romania. Your country, giving proof of courage, decided to send in 1967 an economic delegation to Israel. In addition, that year, an Israeli economic delegation arrived in Bucharest and signed a commercial and economic-technical cooperation agreement. From the political perspective, not only that none of the countries had to suffer, but also Romania has obtained great international prestige.

Yet, lately I have noticed small signs making us believe that the relations between our countries regressed. Thus, on February 6 this year, the Director of the Consular Department called me to hand over the draft of the Agreement on the abolition of visas between the two countries for holders of diplomatic and service passports. Being a technicality, I was told that the action would be effected by an exchange of letters as that was the practice. I agreed with this, but I did not understand why could not be made public. When it comes to an economic agreement of millions of dollars, this can be made public, but something like this, not.

289

Another case. A week ago, your delegation led by President [M.N.D.] N. Giosan went to Israel. Chelouche, Deputy General Director within the Foreign Affairs Ministry, told me two weeks ago that during the discuss with your Minister in Tel Aviv on finalizing the program of the delegation, there were no. objections about the evolution of the negotiations in Jerusalem. Subsequently, however, things have changed, insisting that discussions to take place in Tel Aviv. When Minister Gheorghe Cioară was in Israel, although he paid visits and event held talks in Jerusalem, we published that talks were held in “Israel”, because I remembered that, at that time, Mr. Corneliu Mănescu was the President of U.N. General Assembly. If we consider the fact that P. Macovei had talks in Baghdad, if one should say that Mr. N. Giosan held talks in Tel Aviv, this would be qualified as a stigma for Israel.

The following example refers to the content of “Almanahul Scânteia” from 1968. On page 95, it is stated that Tel Aviv is Israel’s capital and the main cities are Haifa, Petah Tikva, Ramat Gan, etc. The fact that Romania does not recognize Jerusalem as the capital and has its Legation in Tel Aviv we know about. But you cannot say that Tel Aviv is the capital, because this is not true. We believe that if we would say that Galaţi is the capital of Romania, Romanian authorities will not agree”.

E. Doron summarized by saying that it was normal for Prime Minister L. Eshkol to ask about the practical result of Rafael G. talks in Bucharest and, especially, about the level of representation. About this, G. Raphael has informed V. Georgescu, the Minister of Romania in Tel Aviv, who promised to inform the leadership of the Ministry. E. Doron added that he does not claim to be a prophet, but he does not know if there will be a new Beirut and then the situation would be prolonged indefinitely. He also noted that the Deputy Minister, P. Burlacu told him that, if they knew about the incident in Beirut then, the time for publishing the news on raising the representation level would have been during the visit of G. Rafael in Bucharest.

George Macovescu made the following comments to those presented by the Minister of

Israel: “I have listened very carefully. Facts might be so and they may stir in the mind of a

government of a country certain thoughts, but I must say that I disagree with your conclusion. We are confident that the relations between the two countries will continue to develop. I have also told this to President Ion Gheorghe Maurer, exemplifying by concrete facts.

We understand the sensitivity of your government, but we do not weight these kinds of facts with the unchanged position of our country since the June 1967 war. Romania did not sever diplomatic relations with Israel but it was among the few countries that have taken a principled position at the U.N. The President of the State Council, Nicolae Ceauşescu, promoted our point of view on the events in the Near East in public, in Parliament, in private conversations.

I would like to say that Romania does not regard the policy toward Israel through the eyes of the Arabs, but evaluates its relations with the Arab countries and with Israel in relation to its interests. Imagine that Arab countries would begin to sever the relations with us. This act would be detrimental to our country, as, for example, the volume of trade with Israel is much lower than the one with the Arab countries. Romania’s policy is not sentimental, but one based on principles, and when we stand for a position of principle, we face all the risks. Therefore, if you take into account our position of principle, you will realize that you are wrong.”

Referring then to the issue of the level of representation, George Macovescu said it should not be regarded from a pessimistic position. However, we should choose the best moment. In this respect, some actions like improving diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, sending the Romanian Ambassador in Iraq have already prepared the ground. Do not forget that, in this matter, the interest is mutual.

290

In conclusion, E. Doron wanted to clarify, as a basic element, that there are specific

provisions so that no. Israeli government official to practice the Arab policy and why Romania engages in actions with the Arab countries. Also, no. one, never, will forget Romania’s principled position towards the conflict in the Near East, politics that have brought a lot of prestige to the Romanian leaders.

“We know, said E. Doron, that the decision of the Romanian government will be implemented and we would like this to happen as soon as possible. In diplomacy one cannot work mathematically and nobody knows what surprises may bring the unstable situation in the area” . The Israeli minister expressed his opinion that now is the best time, as the Romanian Ambassador in Iraq presented his letters of credence.

Referring then to the economic relations between the two countries, E. Doron said that if the trade volume doubled in 1968 compared to 1967, reaching 21 million $ for each side, in 1969 it is hard double again, but he is sure it will reach 30 million $. Significant increase will be recorded in the area of irrigation, where Israeli technicians have enough expertise.

The meeting lasted two hours.


187

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU M ĂNESCU, MINISTER OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF

THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE NEAR EAST SITUATION AND THE BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 05/00791 February 22, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On February 22, 1969, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Corneliu Mănescu, met the

Minister of Israel in Bucharest, Eliezer Doron, at his request. M. Plătăreanu, Secretary II within the Minister of Foreign Affairs also attended. After expressing his satisfaction of seeing again the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the

Israeli Minister said that, recently, he used to come periodically to the Ministry of Foreign to inform the leadership of the Ministry about some aspects related, mostly, to the evolutions in the Near East and to exchange views regarding this matter and other problems of mutual interests. Underling the fact that the Israeli side needs these kind of talks with a well-intended and uninvolved interlocutor, like the Romanian side, E. Doron said that the visit falls into this practice and he wants to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the Israeli view regarding the latest developments in the Near East.

About this, he mentioned that lately, a new factor is shaping, namely the re-emergence of terrorist actions against Israel. This factor adds an extra element to a rather serious and complex situation in the Near East, which is likely to further aggravate the tension in this part of the world. In the opinion of the Israeli side, things are even more complicated because some Arab governments do not seem strangers to these actions, although they do not cause them overtly.

291

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the intensification of the actions to which the Ambassador refers to has not only an intrinsic importance, but also a deeper meaning. Now, a number of Arab countries governments evince a balanced appreciation towards the ways to resolve the situation in the Near East. The leaders of the countries directly involved in the dispute, like U.A.R. and Jordan continue to militate for a political solution, but also began to give public support to the Palestinian resistance movement. Nevertheless, as time passes without making anything to translate the provisions of the Resolution adopted almost two years ago by the Security Council, it is possible that the position of the political forces against a negotiated regulations to gain ground, by invoking the immobilism generated, as an argument for the use of force solutions. There are signs that the idea of supporting, one way or another, the Palestinian liberation movement, began to gain credit also from the Arab leaders, who consistently stood for a negotiated solution. That being the case, it is getting increasingly clearer, in our opinion, it is in the interest of the Israeli side that things are not delayed and the Security Council Resolution not to fall into disuse. Now it is time to do something to implement this resolution, which at least offers an acceptable arrangement to all stakeholders.

Eliezer Doron said that solving the problem under the conditions ensuring Israel’s right to existence is a matter of great importance for his country. The 20 years’ experience of the State of Israel has fully proven that Arab leaders’ statements on the cessation of the belligerence, freedom of navigation on international maritime routes cannot be trusted. At all times, for example, the U.A.R. government can say that the Suez Gulf or Canal is national navigation routes and therefore, the access of Israeli ships is restricted.

Even under these conditions of uncertainty, Israel agreed to indirect talks through Ambassador Jarring, with the interested Arab countries, taking into account, in this regard, also the Romanian suggestions that the Israeli government has always valued.

Although, he remains convinced that the only way to solve the conflict is through direct negotiations, Israel has an inflexible position, it would accept exchanges of views with the Arab countries by all means, but it expects from them a sign that they are ready to carry out peace talks.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the representatives of the Arab countries affirm that such a sign must come from Israel, who is occupying significant Arab territories and under the terms of perpetuating this situation, one cannot conduct negotiations.

In a situation where, each party expects to hear from the other, one can only get to a dead end, an immobilism that involves aforementioned risks.

The Resolution of the Security Council of November 1967 is a complex document, imposing obligations for all stakeholders and involving, among others things, the need to withdraw the Israeli troops from the occupied territories and ensure the existence of the State of Israel. Within the provisions of this resolution it is, in our opinion, in the interest of Israel to reflect on a formula, a proposal that could represent a step forward and allow overcoming the current impasse.

Eliezer Doron pointed out again that his government believes the only way to resolve the disputed issues in the Near East is that of discussions between parties, even if, initially, are worn by G. Jarring or could be worn – he added – through the good offices of another benevolent and disinterested third party, possibly Romania’s.

However, what Israel cannot accept, by no. means, is a solution imposed by the Great Powers, to whom no. one gave any authority or special powers in this regard. To admit such an influence from the Great Powers means to authorize them to intervene and to impose the will of small peoples in any part of the world.

Mentioning later, that, as we are aware, Ambassador Jarring began a new round of negotiations E. Doron said he wants to inform the Minister of Foreign Affairs about some aspects of Jarring mission, at its current stage. He also said that the Swedish diplomat wants

292

to focus his efforts, now, on achieving negotiations, even indirect, between the government of Israel and King Hussein. The Israeli side, which is in permanent contact with the King of Jordan, knows that he is willing and interested to negotiate with Israel, but is afraid that President Nasser, who does not see with good eyes such negotiations, may plot an attack or other hostile action against him.

According to information had by the Israeli side, Jarring would intend, also, to advance the idea of Sinai Peninsula demilitarization, with or without the presence of U.N. observers in this region. If results are obtained in this direction, Jarring will try to go further. However, the representative of the U.N. Secretary General in the Near East is dissatisfied with the possibility of a conference of the four powers and does not want to have anything to do with these negotiations. On its part, the Israeli side is determined to give its support to Jarring mission, being also open to receiving any practical suggestions about the ways to overcome the dead end reached. He said in this regard that the Israeli side knows very well the contribution of Romania and of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, personally, to exploring and finding ways leading to the adoption of the Security Council Resolutions. He asked C. Mănescu whether, in light of its vast expertise and full knowledge of the Near East file, he would have made any suggestions on what could be done by the Israeli side to reduce tension in the Near East. Next, he asked, pointing out that he has no. instruction to this effect, what does the Minister of Foreign Affairs think about a meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Abba Eban, in Bucharest, Tel Aviv or elsewhere.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said that whenever the occasion presented, Romanian state and government figures, President Nicolae Ceauşescu personally (in the conversation with Gideon Rafael and on other circumstances) drew the attention of the Israeli interlocutors to the danger of accumulating tension, in time, whose predictable and unpredictable effects further more complicate the situation in the Near East. It was also expressed the opinion that in the interest of finding a fair political solution, things should not be allowed to drag on, but rather undertaken as soon as possible steps likely to foster a positive evolution of the situation.

Comrade Corneliu Mănescu also said that he openly discussed, on different occasions, about the multiple aspects of the Near East issue, with Minister Abba Eban, who is aware of the considerations from which the Romanian point of view is inspired. As you know, it is about principle considerations based, on one hand on the rights of the existence of each state and, on the other hand, on the inadmissibility of forced occupation of the territories of other states. At the same time, Romania’s position is determined by our country’s desire to see lasting peace established in an area not too far away from its borders. In this spirit, our country’s representatives have tried to facilitate, if possible, the identification of ways and means of solving the complex problems of the Near East, contributing, to their possible extent, to the adoption of the Security Council Resolution in November 1967. Our country is willing to join in future actions directed towards the establishment of a lasting peace in the region.

In this context, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said it is willing to use every opportunity for an exchange of views with the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs on the situation in the Near East, but under the current circumstances, the timing and content of the meeting should be examined carefully.

Regarding the path to be followed for overcoming the current impasse, comrade Corneliu Mănescu said that, for the moment, the Jarring mission exists, whose efforts continue to be supported.

It is Israeli government’s choice to opt for the most appropriate methods to achieve its security. Our honest and disinterested advice is that, while assessing the current political momentum, to take into account the need for a first application of the Security Council

293

Resolution so that not to gradually accredit the idea that this document is a dead letter, as claimed by the Palestinian liberation movement and by some Arab governments. If the time will be allowed to pass without doing anything, more Arab governments might align to the position of admitting the use of force as the only way possible.

Eliezer Doron said he very much appreciates the honesty and realism of the Romanian point of view, about which will immediately inform his government.

Referring then to the recent action against an Israeli airplane on Zurich airport, the Ambassador said that Romanian newspapers, condemning the Israeli action in Beirut1, did nothing this time.

E. Doron then inquired about the state of the issue of raising the diplomatic representation of the two countries in Bucharest and respectively in Tel Aviv, revealing the Israeli side interest in the development of this issue, for which, as we know, the Romanian government agreement exists.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs replied that, in terms of assessing the events referred to by the Ambassador and the opportunity to take a stand in this respect, we have our own criteria, including not wanting to do anything that would diminish the opportunity to contribute to the resolution of the Near East problem.

Regarding the issue of raising the diplomatic representation level, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that the desire to achieve this step, in the development of bilateral relations, animates the Romanian side too; the approval of principle by the Romanian state leadership exists while the actual implementation to take place at the first favourable moment, to avoid as much as possible reactions that would not be in the interest of any of the parties.

At the end of the discussion, the two parties expressed their hope that the Romanian - Israeli relations will experience an ascendant trend in the interest of both countries and peoples.

The discussion lasted an hour and ten minutes.


188

TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREI GN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENV OY AND

PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, ON THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FORE IGN AFFAIRS

No. 05/00790 March 4, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret. Post-haste In terms of your telegram no. 71 0761:

1 It is about a retaliation raid Israeli executed by an Israeli commando on Beirut airport, on December 28, 1968, after the premeditated attack committing by the Arab forces in Athens on an airplane belonging to the Israeli airline “EL-AL”. On December 31, 1968, the Security Council unanimously condemned this action.

1 Reference to the telegram sent on March 3, 1969 by the Romanian Legation in Tel Aviv, through which clear instructions were asked in relation to the meeting of March 5, 1969 between the Romanian Minister Valeriu Georgescu and Abba Eban, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs. See AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol.1/1969, f. 151.

294

During the discussion with Abba Eban, you should record as precisely as possible his exact words and you will make sure the content of the discussion is sent to Bucharest.

For your guidance, if during the discussion the subject of bilateral relations will be raised, we point out the following:

a) Regarding the status of raising the diplomatic representation of the two countries in Bucharest and Tel Aviv, there is the approval of principle by the Romanian state leadership while the actual implementation to take place at the first favourable moment, to avoid as much as possible reactions that would not be in the interest of any of the parties.

b) Regarding the Project on cultural and scientific exchanges between the Socialist Republic of Romania and Israel for the years 1969-1970, one stated that the project would be handed over to the Israeli side after the signing in Bucharest of the program for the implementation of the cultural cooperation agreement with U.A.R. If this issue is raised, state that it is in the process of being approved by the competent institutions.

c) In relation to the agreement on the abolition of visas for holders of diplomatic passports and service passports, on February 6 this year, the draft of the agreement was delivered to E. Doron, stating that if the Israeli side will find it suitable, the agreement through an exchange of letters will be signed soon and will take effect on March 1 this year or even earlier.

E. Doron expressed his belief that, within two weeks, he will be able to communicate his government’s response and move on to the conclusion of the agreement by an exchange of letters.

So far, no. response has been received. No. [I repeat no], you will not you raise this problem. On February 22, 1969, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Corneliu Mănescu met the Minister of Israel in Bucharest, E. Doron, at his request.

About the content of talks, we will inform you through a separate telegram. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv (received) vol. 1/1969, f. 35-36.

189

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND

PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURL ACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,

ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIO N

No. 71 081 March 5, l969, Tel Aviv, 19.00 h Top Secret. Post-haste On March 5, 1969, in Jerusalem, I have met Abba Eban, the Minister of Foreign

Affairs. He approached only one problem, namely: raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy. From the beginning, he expressed Israeli side concern about the repeated delays so far. For several months, the principle decision was adopted, but practically nothing has been done. There have been much more contacts recently between the representatives of the Israeli Government and the Romanian government on the possibility of raising the diplomatic representation, but there was no. progress, thus:

• On December 16, 1968 Comrade George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister in Bucharest, informed the General Director G. Rafael on the Romanian government decision to raise its diplomatic representation in Israel to the level of embassy, the decision will be implemented until January 15 1969 and a statement on this subject will be released by January 10, 1969.

295

• On December 30, 1968, during a discussion with the Israeli Minister in Bucharest, comrade E. Doron, the First Deputy, confirmed that the decision will be quickly implemented, but it would be preferable not to release the statement before January 22, 1969, the date of the arrival in Romania of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Morocco so that not to offend the guest.

As a result, the press statement on raising the diplomatic representation will be released around January 28, 1969 and the submission of letters of credence will take place by February 10, 1969.

• On January 25, 1969, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister, met with E. Doron and expressed the hope that the statement on the status of diplomatic representation will be released by February 10, 1969.

• On January 30, 1969, Comrade Petru Burlacu, Deputy Minister, explained to the Minister E. Doron that the Romanian government decided to wait a few more days to make a move towards the Arab countries, before sending the new Ambassador in Baghdad, and meanwhile to implement the raising of the diplomatic representation level with Afghanistan.

• Comrade Petru Burlacu, Deputy Minister added that Romania is now in an unpleasant situation, given that the Ambassador had arrived in Baghdad on January 18, 1969 and he has not yet met the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Romanian government feared that by releasing now a joint statement on raising the diplomatic representation between Romania and Israel would put the Ambassador in an awkward situation. He asked the Israeli government to be understanding and promised that the decision will be implemented soon, respectively after the submission of the letters of credence of the Romanian Ambassador in Baghdad.

• On February 8, 1969, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister, during a new meeting with E. Doron, said the Romanian government will immediately communicate the date of the release of the statement and asked to that the importance of choosing the right timing to be understood, pointing out that the Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs postponed his visit to Romania. E. Doron question, if it is intended to wait until after this visit to implement the decision on the diplomatic representation, the answer was that no. one thinks so and that the issue will be examined again with the Minister, comrade Corneliu Mănescu, while expressing the hope that this matter will be settled soon. On February 23, 1969, E. Doron informed that, during the discussion with the Minister, comrade Corneliu Mănescu, he was reassured that the decision of raising the diplomatic representation still stands, but the date for its implementation cannot be fixed yet.

After reassuring that the aforementioned will be passed exactly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I have underlined that the only thing that is not yet determined in this matter, is the actual date of publishing the decision taken. As determined, it must be chosen carefully and the most favourable moment to be found will have to coincide with the interests of both parties. Personally, I have noticed that the concerns are not exactly motivated. The leadership of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs whenever proposed a delay of the publishing, it also presented important elements justifying it, even confidential, in the spirit of close and normal relations existing between the two countries. Next, Abba Eban stated that the political and diplomatic dialogue goes well, friendly, economic relations are developing satisfactorily, and the whole structure of the bilateral relations is favourable to the regulation of the dragging diplomatic representation level.

He expressed his hope that the entire complex of problems will be studied along with all its implications and, as soon as possible, the date for the implementation of the decision will be fixed.

It is important now that the two countries to reach an agreement and fix the date. He cannot stand that the relations between Israel and Romania to be always

subordinated to Arabs calendar.

296

As a suggestion, he indicated the date of March 15 this year for the release of the joint press statement. To the regulation of the diplomatic representation will not be conferred an exaggerated significance and will avoid an advertising propaganda so that this subject not to be “overstated”.

I would be pleased, said Abba Eban, if I could get an answer within a few days. In the same spirit, E. Doron will receive instructions to make contact with the members of the Romanian government.


190

TELEGRAM OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREI GN AFFAIRS

OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENV OY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER IN TEL AVIV,

ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIO N

No. 05/00837 March 11, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret. Post-haste In terms of your telegrams no. 71 0811 and 71 0862 ; Regarding the proposal made by A. Eban, the upper leadership decided to maintain the

agreement on raising the reciprocal representation level but, we consider that this is not the right time to release it.

Consequently, pay a visit to A. Dagan, Director within the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, referring to the discussion that you had with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. Eban, on March 5 this year and his suggestion to be released on March 15, say the following:

“Romanian government maintains its decision to agree upon raising the reciprocal diplomatic representation to the level of embassy, but believes that carrying it out now, does not serve the interests of the two parties”.

Reiterate the determination of the Romanian government to develop relations with Israel, based on respect and common interest.

If the interlocutor asks or insists on proposing a certain date, express your personal belief that when the time is right, Romanian side will make, for sure, proposals to the Israeli side. Inform us on the course of the discussion.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv (received), vol.1/1969, f. 47.

1 See doc. no. 189. 2 Reference to the telegram of the Romanian Legation to Tel Aviv of March 10, 1969 on regulating the level of diplomatic representation. See AMFA, Telegrams matter. Tel Aviv, vol. 1/1969, f.168.

297

191


DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE DATE OF RAISING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPR ESENTATION

Nr. 71 089 March 13, 1969, Tel Aviv, 18.30 h Top Secret. Urgent On March 13, 1969, I have met, in Jerusalem, A. Dagan, Director of Relations within

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I have sent the answer of the Romanian government regarding the suggestion made by Abba Eban that, on March 15, to be released the decision on raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy.

A. Dagan noted word by word the communication that I made and said he would send it urgently to Abba Eban, in Washington, because he gave instructions that in the event of a response, to be informed, no. matter he might be. He added that, personally, is disappointed by our communication and it will leave the same impression to the Minister of Foreign Affairs too. In earlier discussions, in Bucharest, one could understand that raising the diplomatic representation is only a matter of days, not a matter of principle, as it seems now. They believed that the promises made by the leaders of the two friend countries would be fulfilled. The Israeli side is always ready to meet the promises it committed. He said that this is a first reaction to our answer and he reserves the right that the Minister to express his position later. Specifically, he asked me to explain how to understand the change of heart regarding this issue. After saying that I have expressed a personal opinion, I underlined the fact that one cannot consider our position changed or that the delay in implementing the decision is now a matter of principle. As results from the communication made, setting the best date and timing for both parties refer to the form, method, the general framework of implementing the principle of the decision adopted, which has not undergone any change. The commitments and obligations assumed by us were and will be strictly observed in the future, as a direct reflection of the eagerness to maintain and develop relations after the war in June 1967, to the advantage and benefit of both our foreign policy, based on the known principles. The feelings of disappointment and concern or the artificial acceleration of setting up the acceptable momentum of the two countries to release the decision to regulate the level of diplomatic representation is not exactly justified and if they would be acted on, it might create some difficulties and overshadow the perspective of development of bilateral relations.

A. Dagan, thanking for the opinions expressed, said that he appreciated and will always appreciate the fair, principles political position Romania in relation to the conflict and maintaining the relations with Israel. He does not understand why the implementation of the principle decision to regulate the diplomatic representation level is conditioned by the concerns not to disrupt the relations with the Arab countries; such delays occur between countries that have normal relations, but not between those who want friendly relations. Therefore, Abba Eban expressed his concern and disappointment it. Of course, the entire complex of economic, cultural and political relations will not be influenced by this delay, but will neither encourage those who want to further develop the relations between the two countries. Though an unpleasant feeling is generated because the decision was not actually put into practice and which is not really something of great importance. All the more so Romania adopted courageous decisions in other international matters.


298

192


ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST,

REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO COUNTRIES CONCER NING THE DATE FOR INCREASING LEVEL OF

THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASS Y

No. 05/00974 March 18, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On March 17, 1969, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, met

at his request with Eliezer Doron, Minister of Israel to Bucharest. Dumitru Curavale, Secretary II, was also attended the meeting. After an interchange of civilities, E. Doron, referring to the answer sent to the Israeli

side by V. Georgescu, Extraordinary Envoy and Plenipotentiary Minister of Romania to Tel Aviv, in terms of maintaining the current level of diplomatic representation, said that it was a total disappointment for the Israeli government. From the political point of view, said E. Doron, the current level of the relations between the two countries is not reflected to the same extent. Delaying raising the diplomatic relations between the two countries to the level of embassy after Romanian government’s intent was made known is considered, by the members of the Israeli cabinet, as a serious matter, likely to interfere in the good relations existing between Romania and Israel.

Next, the Israeli Minister said that Abba Eban intended that E. Doron to remain in Romania until the diplomatic relations level is raised. In the same context, he also said that he would soon leave Romania, because he was appointed Ambassador to Argentina.

Our concern, said E. Doron, not only refers to the level of the diplomatic relations, but also to some vital matter for Israel. Thus, President Ion Gheorghe Maurer promised, in December 1968, to Gideon Rafael, that he will pay more attention to the subject of Jewish family reintegration, but within about three months, only 50 persons left Israel (he mentioned that for the time being substantial exoduses of Jewish people are registered from the Soviet Union and Poland to Israel).

E. Doron also pointed out that the economic relations between the two countries experience difficulties from the Romanian side, which require reviewing. Adding that the Israeli side is prepared to fulfil its assumed obligations, including increasing the influence of Romanian products and even of Romania itself in areas where it is not so well-known, E. Doron, on behalf of the Israeli government, invited George Macovescu to pay a short visit to Israel to discuss matters of bilateral relations.

If this is not possible, the Israeli government, said E. Doron, proposes a meeting of the First deputy of the Romanian Minister of Foreign Affairs with Gideon Rafael, in Europe or any other location convenient for the Romanian side. He also said that if the meeting is going to take place outside Israel, it should be kept a secret.

George Macovescu made the following remarks to those presented by the Minister of

Israel: “Like in other occasion, I will not share the pessimism expressed by the Israeli side

regarding the relations between Romania and Israel. We did not change our position

299

regarding the conflict from the Near East and we do not intend to – it is a position of principle. We neither change our position regarding the relations with Israel. Best proof is the fact that Mr. N. Giosan went to Israel and successfully tackled the problems in the interest of the parties.

It seems to me that you pay a great importance to this gesture (raising the level of representation), which is more a matter of form and not of content.

The decision of the Romanian government to raise the diplomatic relations to the level of embassy was not random. However, its publishing was to be set by mutual agreement, on a mutually agreed date. Recent events in the area and especially Israel’s action in Beirut contributed to postponing the publishing of the decision taken. We informed through our Minister in Tel Aviv that we did not change our position, but it is not a good time to carry out this action.

I would like to reiterate the fact that Romania does not regard the policy on Israel through the eyes of the Arabs, but if we want to contribute to the resolution of the Near East conflict, we must proceed with caution. Our position in this part of the world is not a policy of conjuncture and it is not related to petty interests, but it is a policy of principle”.

Referring to the economic relations, George Macovescu said that there are some Israeli companies not fulfilling the contractual obligations towards the Romanian side, but we do not relate this problem to the political relations and we do not escalate these shortcomings to the level of problem.

Regarding family reintegration, George Macovescu assured his interlocutor that he

will make inquire and he will inform the Romanian Prime-Minister Ion Gheorghe Maurer about this matter. The answer to this matter as well as the proposal regarding the visit to Israel or other location in Europe, added the First Deputy Minister, will be notified in due time to the Israeli side.

George Macovescu continued by asking his interlocutor to inform the Israeli authorities that there are no. reasons for concerns and that the situation should not be dramatized. A misinterpretation of the relation between the two countries as well as rushing into choosing the proper time for raising the level of representation might generate difficulties for both parties. In fact, said the First Deputy Minister, what it is happening now in the Near East will prove us right once again regarding the fact that the worsening of the situation in the area is neither in the interest of Israel nor of the Arab countries and the Great Powers might impose a solution in the absence of an agreement for a peaceful resolution of the disputes between the concerned parties.

“Remember that, said George Macovescu, if we have enjoyed a specific position and we have been able to discuss both with Israel and the Arab countries, it is because we maintained a certain balance”.

E. Doron intervened by saying that, in terms of raising the level of representation, Israel experienced the same problems with Poland and the Soviet Union, but the respective countries said to the Arabs that they have their own policy and that the relations with Israel are bilateral and not triangular.

In this context, George Macovescu said that Romania reacted when the Arab

countries have attempted to present in a distorted manner our policy on the Near East and continued by saying, as he already has said to others, that we do not justify our own policy to anyone but in front of the Romanian people.

Next, E. Doron, saying that the discussion on raising the representation level goes on

for years, made the following remarks:

300

“The relations between Israel and Romania are worsened by the relations with the Arab countries. We are not telling you what to do regarding your relations with the Arab countries, but reality proves altogether the attention that you pay them. At the beginning, you have said that there is a boycott letter from the Arab countries. Afterwards, the Romanian Ambassador was sent to Iraq to present his letters of credence. Then I have understood the situation that was supposed to last only one week, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but lately you are talking a lot about Beirut. One should consider and note also the action of the other side, namely: an Israeli airplane forced to land in Alger, one attacked in Zurich, Jewish people hanged in Baghdad, Jerusalem University bombed as well as some other stores in Israel and so on.

In some situations, Romania proved also its courage. We can buy phosphates in Israel and tractors in Romania lightly, but opening the Bucharest-Tel Aviv airline cannot be done in secret”.

George Macovescu intervened by saying that the Arab countries can say the same thing, that the relations with them are hindered by the relations with Israel. Given the fact that Romania is not pursuing any interests in this part of the world, it wants to develop this kind of relations with countries involved in the conflict so that to allow it to take actions also in the future.

In relation to the comment of George Macovescu that France proposed the Israeli Ambassador in Paris [Walter Eytan] a plan, E. Doron said the following:

“Romania is one of the countries that we confide in. We do not trust the Soviet Union or France. A country that was blind to the danger that Israel faced in June 1967 and who instituted, unilaterally, an embargo, is a country that cannot be trusted. When France fought in Algeria, it needed Israel and now, when the war is over and it needs the oil from the Arab countries, it no longer needs Israel. France speaks about Israel’s withdrawal on the lines from June 4, while the Resolution of the Security Council of November 22, 1967 speaks about safer and recognized borders. It is a unilateral policy that France is conducting and we hope that the new French government will adopt a new position toward Israel”.

The meeting lasted one hour.


193

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRE SIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER D ORON,

EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING

THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA

No. 17/00198 April 10, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On April 3, 1969, the President of the Council of Minister, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, met

with the Minister of Israel to Bucharest, Eliezer Doron, regarding his departure for good from our country.

The meeting was attended also by Vasile Gliga, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. At the meeting assisted M. Plătăreanu, Secretary II in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

301

After expressing his appreciation for the honour of meeting, on the eve of his definitive departure from Romania, the President of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Israel expressed his gratitude for the constant support and understanding that he enjoyed from the Romanian leaders during the time he represented his country to Bucharest. He underlined the fact that his stay in Romania was instructive as much as pleasant and that the experience gathered during a very difficult period in terms of the international conjuncture has even more strengthened his respect and sympathy for the Romanian people and his leaders. Looking back to the past times offers the picture of a positive outcome. Although the highest level was not reached, the Romanian-Israeli relations have experienced a favourable evolution in the economic, politic and cultural area thanks to the willingness for cooperation and the efforts made by both parties. Emphasizing that in Romania he better understood the meaning of true patriotism, he continued by saying that he came to our country as a friend and this feeling was further strengthen during his stay in Bucharest and that he will always remain a true friend of the Romanian people.

The President of the Council of Ministers said that during the period when Mr. E.

Doron represented his country to Bucharest, the Romanian-Israeli relations have had a positive evolution, in various areas, evolution to which, through his qualities, the Israeli Minister also contributed. Pointing out the willingness of the Romanian side to further on develop these relations, based on mutual respect and advantage, by a more efficient outlining of the possibilities of cooperation existent at the economic, technical-scientific level and so on, the President of the Council of Ministers asked if the person to continue the efforts of E. Doron, as a representative of Israel in Romania, was yet appointed.

E. Doron answered that the Israeli government considers the diplomatic office in Bucharest as one of the most important offices given, on one side the friendly relation between the two countries and on the other hand, the fact that Romania is, along with Cuba, the only socialist country where Israel is represented. Given all these, the Israeli government will send to Bucharest a high-class diplomat. Until now a decision regarding the successor was not taken, but all three potential candidates in question who are currently occupying positions abroad have the required professional and moral qualities to fully meet the requirements of this important position. In this context, the Minister added that he does not know yet if his successor is going to come to Bucharest as Ambassador or Minister.

Along the same line, E. Doron said that he must emphasize, without any doubt that his departure from Bucharest is by no. means connected with the fact that the decision regarding the raising of the diplomatic level of representation between the two countries was not yet implemented. The decision regarding its transfer to Buenos Aires was taken before the arrival to Bucharest of the general secretary of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gideon Rafael, a confirmation in this regard was also the fact that, probably due to the indiscretion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an Israeli newspaper published, even before the visit of G. Rafael, a news regarding the departure of Minister Doron from Romania.

It is true that the Israeli side is somehow disappointed for not achieving the raising of the representation level, in its opinion more a technicality, in compliance with the international custom, in terms of which the concept of legation, Minister are more and more obsolete.

The Israeli government would have preferred, out of condescendence for E. Doron, but also for political reasons, that the action to be implemented while he was still in Bucharest. Nevertheless, this does not mean at all that the failure to achieve it contributed to his departure from Bucharest, which was planned before and was in fact only postponed for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, it is not about the disapproval of the Israeli government of

302

the manner in which he conducted his activity in Bucharest or of an insufficient diligence in the matter of raising the representation level.

The President of the Council of Ministers said that he noted the clarifications of the Minister and showed that any claim in the sense of an alleged negligence of Minister E. Doron in the matter of raising the level of representation, would not correspond to reality. The truth is that taking into account Romania’s position in the context of the circumstances related to the Near East matter, the Minister had a substantial activity, which contributed to further enhancing the relations between the two countries.

Then, President Ion Gheorghe Maurer pointed out that Romania’s position in relation to the importance of the Near East subject is determined by grounds of principle. Being interested in a fair and peaceful resolution of the disputes in an area not far from its borders, Romania actively promoted the basis of its position, both at the level of U.N. as well as in other circumstances and was willing to assist to set out a positive trend in the matter, to the best of its abilities and where the situation is morally and juridical fair.

E. Doron said that the Israeli side is especially appreciative for the position adopted, for the way in which Romania handled the mentioned circumstances and it is fully aware of the difficulties that it faced in supporting this sensible and fundamental matter. The Israeli side not only does it want to further develop the relations with Romania, but it considers that the Romanian side did not use the full potential of goodwill that it benefits from in Israel, which, although it is a small country, it has considerable resources and it is ready to assist Romania in any area: politics, economics, etc. under any form that might be considered appropriate by the Romanian side.

These feelings of true friendship and openness to cooperation, that the Israeli government has, represent the best guarantee that between the departure of Minister E. Doron from Bucharest and raising level of diplomatic representation there can be no. contingency. As I have already said, the Israeli part is disappointed that those agreed during the visit of Gideon Rafael were not implemented, but this is a completely different matter.

The President of the Council of Ministers pointed out that the Romanian side based its relations with Israel on the belief that the two countries can develop, for the benefit of both nations, multilateral cooperation relations, mutually beneficial. The effective evolution of the relations confirmed this evaluation. Meanwhile, the Near East conflict started, to which Romania adopted the position known, determined by the principle considerations of respecting sovereignty and the existence of the states, of the inadmissibility of imposing by force the will of one state on another one. As it is known, the Romanian-Israeli relations were maintained, gradually developed in certain areas and, because of this favourable evolutions, there was agreed the mutual diplomatic representation raising. The leadership of the Romanian state adopted a decision in this regard, but there seems to be a misunderstanding about the exact content of that decision. In fact, it was taken into consideration a certain period – January or another month – to carrying out this action, but a moment jointly considered as appropriate. On the other hand, the implementation of the decisions taken in a certain situation was hampered by the future unfolding of events, especially by the Israeli action in Beirut, which has generated adverse reactions, even among Israel supporters and determined the blaming of the action by the Security Council1.

Diplomatic representation’s raising covers, in our opinion, not only formal aspects, but it is an act of political significance and, as such, should be done with discretion, at an appropriate moment, to avoid negative reactions which would not be in the interest of any of the parties.

Referring then, on the other hand, to the comment made by the Minister that the possibilities of economic cooperation between Romania and Israel are insufficiently 1 See footnote 1 to doc. no. 187.

303

exploited, President [of the Council of Ministers] Ion Gheorghe Maurer said that he shares the opinion that much more could be achieved, especially in the area of economic and scientific-technical cooperation, which provides broad prospects for cooperation. Highlighting them requires initiative and dynamism from both sides and one can say that Roman relevant bodies are not safe for any criticism under this requirement.

E. Doron said the suggestion made since 1967 by the Israeli side on tourism development in Romania by creating an airline route New York - Bucharest - Tel Aviv, which could be used by most of the ½ million American tourists of Jewish origin, en route to Israel. This would provide Romania important sources of foreign currency without requiring substantial investment. Although so far 5-6 Israeli delegation have arrived in Romania with plans, schemes etc., nothing concrete has been done so far. Of course, the delay with which some cooperation actions are performed should not diminish the results obtained, which provide grounds for satisfaction of both parties.

Israeli minister said then, on the other hand, that he wanted to personally inform the Council of Ministers on the proposal of the Israeli side, previously presented to the Foreign Affairs Ministry regarding a meeting George Macovescu - Gideon Rafael, occasioned by a possible visit of the Prime-Deputy Minister in a European country, to discuss some matters of bilateral relations and other issues of common interest. The meeting could take place secretly, at the Romanian or Israel Embassy or elsewhere. In this context, he said that the Israeli side usually informs their friends about events in the Near East and appreciates a lot Romanian suggestions, which were followed in some cases as, for example, in accepting indirect talks through Ambassador Jarring.

The President of the Council of Ministers said that the Romanian side will evaluate the opportunity of carrying out the meeting suggested by the Israeli side and will give an appropriate response soon. In principle, the Romanian side is not against contacts and meetings, if their usefulness is justified by the existence of reasons.

E. Doron then referred to a problem that the Israeli side pays great importance and for whose solving he asks for the benevolent support of the Romanian government. It is about speeding up the approval of the departure applications for family reintegration. The Israeli side has always recognized that the problem is within the exclusive competence of the Romanian authorities, which are asked to be sympathetic to the possibility of speeding up the approvals, if, of course, this would not prejudice the Romanian side in any way. He said that during this year 104 people received their departure certificates.

The President of the Council of Ministers explained that the Romanian side is sympathetic towards the solving of cases that covers humanitarian aspects. According to the data available, the number of applications approved is appreciably higher. Romanian authorities willingly continue to investigate this matter, including more operative methods to solve urgent cases.

Concluding the conversation, E. Doron said that he doesn’t want to raise the matter of

the Near East conflict’s grounds, but just to mention that Israel will not accept under any circumstances a solution imposed by the Great Powers, to which no. one conferred any special authority in this respect. The struggle for existence that the State of Israel is currently facing is, in fact, the struggle of all small countries, because admitting such jurisdiction from the Great Powers means authorizing them to impose their will on smaller nations all over the world.

The President of the Council of Ministers has explained that to be viable any regulation must be acceptable for the interested parties and no. authority can substitute their will. Regarding the consultations between the Great Powers, they may prove useful to the

304

extent that facilitates the exploration of new ways to overcome the current impasse so that the Near East conflict in regulated fairly and acceptable to the all parties.

The Israeli Minister thanked the President of the Council of Ministers for his amiability and President I. Gh. Maurer wished E. Doron success in fulfilling the newly assigned responsibilities.

The discussion lasted one hour.


194



FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA

No. 05/01799 April 12, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On April 11, 1969, George Macovescu, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, met

Eliezer Doron, Israel’s Minister to Bucharest, on his definitive departure from the country. Dumitru Curavale, Secretary II assisted. After an interchange of civilities, E. Doron, noting that during the two years and four

months that he acted as head of the Israeli Mission in Romania he learned a lot, and said that he would like to explain something related to his relieve from duties, given that following the discussions with the President of the Council of Ministers, Ion Gheorghe Maurer1, he noticed a misunderstanding regarding his departure from Bucharest and he wants to clarify that it is not related to the failure to actually implement the decision of the two governments to raise the level of diplomatic relations.

Next, E. Doron, saying that the relations between the two countries have a strong foundation in terms of the aforementioned decision, he pointed out that since December 1968 the Minister of Foreign Affairs Abba Eban, decided his appointment as Ambassador to Argentina, fact that due to negligence has been leaked to Israeli media, who published since then the story. In the same context, E. Doron said that the publishing in the media of this news, besides putting the Israeli side in a bad situation in relation to the Romanian government, as it announces his appointment in another country, without having the chance to personally announce his departure from Bucharest (the Romanian Minister in Tel Aviv, himself, V. Georgescu, asked during a visit to the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry if the media reports are truthful or not), it also generated some inconveniences for him as the Argentine’s Ambassador to Bucharest congratulated him for being appointed as Head of Mission in Buenos Aires and the Argentine’s Ambassador to Jerusalem asked about the arrival of the new titular in Argentina.

E. Doron said the position in Bucharest, considered a key one by the Israeli government, there are 3 candidates and he hopes that within few weeks the approval for one of them to be asked for.

1 See doc no. 193

305

To those related by the interlocutor, George Macovescu said that during the multiple

contacts that he had with the Israeli Minister (during quite difficult moments - events of June 1967) a common language was identified that ultimately led to consent. “I acknowledge those stated today, said the First Deputy Minister, but during the last conversations you said that Minister A. Eban intended to leave you as Head of Mission in Bucharest until raising the level of representation is achieved; given that the decision of the two governments was not applied, your transfer to another position was decided”. George Macovescu said further that although those stated then by E. Doron were also confirmed by the signs of nervousness showed, in the same period, by the authorities in Jerusalem, the Romanian side neither drew political conclusions nor dramatized the situation.

Referring to the development of relations between countries, George Macovescu said to E. Doron that the contacts between the two parties will continue and in this context, the meeting with Gideon Rafael will be organized, somewhere in Europe, while the details are to be determined through the Minister of the Socialist Republic of Romania in Tel Aviv, V. Georgescu. If Mr. Gideon Rafael, said the First Deputy Minister, is going to present new proposals or information, these will be discussed during this meeting.

Thanking for the answer regarding the meeting with Gideon Rafael, General Director within the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, E. Doron said that he might have been misspoken when he announced his departure Romania, which gave rise to unintended interpretations.

Next, E. Doron asked if it is possible that his successor to present his letters of credence as an Ambassador and this is not something spectacular. He said that this idea was also presented during the discussion with the President of the State Council, Nicolae Ceauşescu, who replied that the Foreign Affairs Ministry should discuss the matter.

In conclusion, George Macovescu wished success to his interlocutor in his new position, assuring him that his successor will enjoy the full support of the Ministry.



195


DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGA RDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 71 140 April 28, 1969, Tel Aviv, 23.00 h Top Secret. Urgent A. Dagan, Relations Director within the Foreign Affairs Ministry, invited me on April

27 this year, to a restaurant in Jerusalem, to eat. On this occasion, during the discussions was approached the subject of bilateral relations (raising the diplomatic representation level, family reintegration) and the events from the lines of cease-fire and from some Arab countries.

Regarding the matter of bilateral relations, I briefly present the following: a) Delaying the solving of raising the representation is likely to stimulate certain internal

and external interpretations. In Israel will generate surprise and confusion among the public

306

opinion in general and among those from Romania, especially as the only Eastern Europe country that has not yet severed the relations and maintains them to the level of legation.

It is almost inevitable, according to our information, that in a short while the meeting between the four parties in New York1 will come to a dead end, given that the current contradictory positions’ alignment is not foreseeable.

In such a situation, both Moscow and especially Washington will focus on the good offices of the countries that maintain good relations with both Arab countries and with Israel, such as Romania and the Netherlands. Raising the level of representation, in this case, would be regarded favourably by the four Great Powers, especially by U.S.A and perhaps less favourable by the Soviet Union.

Our future actions would gain extra prestige and weight to the Arab leaders because they will no longer be under the false impression that maintaining the current level is due to the concern of not damaging the relations with them.

To the questions or explanation required during the discussion, A. Dagan said that, although they understood and are aware of our position, Israel would not accept it. He presented the aforementioned arguments for the information of the Romanian side in order to accelerate the settlement of the appropriate moment to solve this problem.

b) regarding emigration, after he reminded that for Israel this matter is as critical and acute as the problem of security and defence, he asked on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Ministry’s leadership that the specific promises made by Minister E. Doron during recent discussions held with the highest figures of state’s leadership, to be as soon as possible implemented, in the sense of increasing the number of Jewish families from Romania to Israel.

In the Transcript Note will be presented in detail all the other issues discussed. The purpose of the questions asked was to clearly understand and clarify the ideas of the

interlocutor. The answers were given in the spirit of our country’s position in the respective matters.


196

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MI NISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MENACHEM KARMI,

CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BU CHAREST, REGARDING THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MUTUAL DECISION FO R

RAISING THE LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION

No. 05/001946 July 2, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On June 30, 1969, Petru Burlacu, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, invited

Menachem Karmi1, charge d’affaires a.i. of Israel to Bucharest, to a meeting. S. Celac, Secretary II within the Foreign Affairs Ministry, attended.

1 In the period April 3-July 1 1969, in New York, on a weekly base joint meetings between the representatives of the Soviet Union, U.S.A., Great Britain and France took place at the U.N. to identify political solutions to the Near East conflict. After the first meeting, the statement release to the media stated that the four will continue to support the peace efforts of Gunnar Jarring. On July 1, 1969, these meetings were suspended once the bilateral Soviet-American meetings on Near East were launched in Washington.

1 Menachem Karmi (born in 1921), Israeli diplomat; Adviser of the Legation to Bucharest (August 23, 1967- October 15, 1971).

307

P. Burlacu said that the purpose for which he convoked the Israeli diplomat was to further inform him on the issue of raising both diplomatic representations to the level of embassy. After a careful analysis of the whole problem, the leadership of the Romanian government and state believes that the conditions for implementing the decision on raising the diplomatic relations between Romania and Israel to the level of embassy are met and decided to propose the Israeli side to agree upon the necessary measures for in this regard. A first step in this direction would be the renewal of the approval request, this time as Ambassador, for the new Head of Israeli diplomatic mission in Bucharest.

It is proposed that the news about the announcement of the decision of the two governments to raise the level of both diplomatic representations, to be made public simultaneously in Bucharest and Jerusalem, two days before the arrival of the new Israeli Ambassador. The Romanian side believes that excessive publicity surrounding this decision is not desirable and it is not in the interest of either party, therefore, it proposes that no. further action to be taken besides releasing brief news. According to the information provided by the Romanian Legation in Tel Aviv, the new Ambassador of Israel to Romania will return from Cambodia in mid-July, so that after a month of training he will be able to assume the position in Bucharest, around August 15 this year The Romanian side considers that the date is convenient in all respects and the new Ambassador will have the opportunity to submit his letters of credence just before the jubilee anniversary of August 23.

The Deputy Minister also said that similar communication was sent in the morning of the same day to the General Director within the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, Rafael G., by the Minister of Romania in Tel Aviv.

M. Karmi kindly thanked for the transmission of the communication and he reassured

that he would inform his Ministry or Foreign in detail, including about the additional considerations presented by the Deputy Minister. He confessed that he felt somewhat embarrassed when he had to submit the request for approval without specifying the quality of the new Head of Israel’s Mission, contrary to the normal practice and he again expressed his satisfaction regarding the complete normalization of the Romanian- Israel diplomatic relations, which will undoubtedly contribute to expanding and consolidating the cooperation between the two countries.


197

TELEGRAM OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, TO THE ROMANIAN LEGATIO N IN

TEL AVIV REGARDING THE DATE FOR RAISING THE LEVEL OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION

No. 05/001946 August 11, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret. Post-haste Please note that on August 17 this year, the Romanian and Israeli media will publish a

joint press release on raising the level of diplomatic representation between the Socialist Republic of Romania and Israel to the level of embassy. The radio and TV stations will broadcast the press release on August 16, starting at 20:00.

308

If they are to be asked about the significance of this action, Romanian diplomats will point out that this action is in line with the measures recently taken by the Romanian government to raise all its diplomatic representatives to the level of embassy.

It should be stressed that diplomatic relations’ practice revealed in the post-war period and especially during the last years, the need to standardize the diplomatic representation based on the right to respect and equal treatment of all states, either large or small. (See the article “Current concerns in the field of diplomatic representation” in “Lumea”, no. 2 of January 4 this year). You can give as examples that during the last years Romania has raised its level of diplomatic representation with African countries (Ethiopia), Arab countries (A.R. of Yemen) with Afghanistan, Argentina, and Uruguay and the setting of new diplomatic relations was made only to the level of embassy.

To the interlocutors is to be explained that Romania maintains diplomatic relations to the level of legation only with Brazil, specifying, however, that in 1968, during the visit of the Minister, comrade C. Mănescu, in Rio de Janeiro, it was evaluated the raising of the diplomatic missions between the two states to the level of embassy1. The speculations in the sense raising the level of representation with Israel because of a special development of Romania’s relations with this country will be rejected. It will be stated that the relations between Romania and Israel are normal relations based on the principles of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems.

To the officials and Arab diplomats is to be emphasized that raising the diplomatic representation with Israel will neither affect Romania’s well-known policy of friendship and solidarity with the Arab nations nor our country’s position on the ways to resolve the conflict in the Near East. (Romanian diplomacy will use, in terms of our country’s position towards Arab countries, Israel and the Near East conflict, party and state documents, as well as indications that were sent by the Foreign Affairs Ministry).

If some of the interlocutors try to relate the measure of raising the diplomatic representation with Israel to the visit of President Nixon to Bucharest2, our diplomats will firmly reject such insinuations, saying that Romania is a country that independently develops its foreign policy and external actions.

Please monitor and forward operatively those comments that have a particular meaning and importance. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv (received) vol. 1/1969.

1 The diplomatic missions of the S.R. of Romania and Brazil were to be raised to the level of embassy on May 8, 1974.

2 On 2 -3 August 1969, U.S.A. President Richard Nixon paid an official visit to Romania, the first visit of an American President to Romania and the first one in a socialist country after 1945.

309

198

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MI NISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH MENACHEM KARMI,

CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BU CHAREST, REGARDING THE ACTION OF MUTUAL INCREASING OF

THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASS Y

No. 05/002081 August 11, 1969, Bucharest Top Secret On August 11 this year, P. Burlacu, Deputy Minister, met with M. Karmi, chargé

d’affaires a.i. of Israel to Bucharest, at his request. I. Sfetea, counsellor to Vth D.R. assisted. M. Karmi sent the consent of the Israeli side on the Romanian proposals on the way in

which the action of raising the diplomatic representatives of the two countries to the level of embassy is going to be done. In this regard, he said the following:

• On August 16 this year, 20.00 hours, the joint press release will be broadcasted on

radio and TV stations. • On August 17 this year, this statement will be released to the media. • On August 18 this year, the Ambassador of Israel to Bucharest will arrive in

Romania. • On August 19-20 this year the submission of letters of credence is going to take

place. Also, he asked that the Romanian Ambassador V. Georgescu to arrive in Tel Aviv on

August 17 of this year so that to have time to contact the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, as on August 19 this year, at noon, the submission of letters of credence will take place. (He said that the President of the State of Israel, after this date, is no longer available).

M. Karmi also said that an August 13-14, current year, he would be able to submit a copy of the speech that the Israeli Ambassador will give on submission of the letters of credence.

P. Burlacu thanked for the information and for the fact that Israeli office in Bucharest will submit in due time the text of the speech. He also said that the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry would send through the diplomatic office in Tel Aviv, on the same dates, August 13-14, the text of the speech that Ambassador V. Georgescu’s would give at the presentation of the letters of credence.

Regarding the date of August 19 or 20 of this year for the submission of letters of credence in Bucharest, Petru Burlacu, Deputy Minister said he would inform the Israeli diplomatic office in a timely manner about the exact date.

In connection with the proposal of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry that Ambassador Georgescu to arrive in Tel Aviv one day early (August 17 of this year), Petru Burlacu said they will see if it is possible, but, as far as he knows, practically it is not feasible due to the internal agenda and transport possibilities.


310

199

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA,

REGARDING HIS MEETING WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

Nr 71 289 August 18, 1969, Tel Aviv Secret. Urgent While presenting the copy of the letters of credence to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Abba Eban, on the August 18 of this year, he noted that the event is regarded by the Israeli public opinion and by other countries with sympathy and great satisfaction.

He appreciated that raising the representation level is a natural and necessary finality, completely normal, for the good relations that have been established between the two countries.

He expressed his opinion that the bilateral relations will continue to develop towards a fuller satisfaction and mutual benefit.

In addition, the cooperation between the two countries in exploiting ways and means for reducing the tension and the resolution of the conflict with the Arab countries will continue and stimulate the continuous efforts to establish a climate of understanding in the Near East.

To the above, I’ve expressed the belief that raising the diplomatic representation opens new perspectives for expanding and developing the relations between the two countries based on the well-known principles of the foreign policy of our country and, from the economic, technical and scientific point of view, the under way initiatives will have found a practical forms, as soon as possible, corresponding to the mutual interest and benefit; also our country will further on consistently advocate for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and promote the position adopted on the Middle East conflict, for reinstating peace and the right to existence of sovereignty and independence of all the states in the region.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol.2/1969, f.230-231.

200

TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU,

EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS O F ROMANIA,

ON CONDUCTING THE OFFICIAL CEREMONY FOR PRESENTING THE LETTERS OF CREDENCE

No. 71 291 August 19, 1969, Tel Aviv Secret. Urgent On August 19, at 12.00 pm, I have submitted my letters of credence to the President of

Israel, Zalman Shazar. The ceremony was attended by Abba Eban and by senior officials of the Foreign Affairs Ministry and State Presidency. After the submission, about 15 minutes, I have talked with the President and Abba Eban.

During the discussion, the President made the following significant remarks:

311

1. Raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy indicates the evolution of the relations between the two countries, event welcomed with profound satisfaction and, without any doubt, which will favourably reflect both for Israel as well as for Romania and in many other countries.

Speaking of the former immigration from our country, he said that it contributed to the formation of the State of Israel 85 years ago, when, unlawfully, groups of Romanian Jewish, facing the terror of the English domination in Palestine, with the sacrifice of life, settled on Israeli land forming the first kibbutzim (farms) in the region of Galilee. For Israel is unforgettable the essential contribution to the strengthening of the brought by the recent emigration, among which prestigious intellectuals and men of culture and science distinguished for their work and whose results have exceeded the borders of the country.

2. A. Eban added that recent year’s relations have diversified and expanded, tourism has grown and now a broad framework of measures is considered in the area of trade and economic cooperation, which will find practicality in the interest of both countries in the near future.

He underlined the good and fruitful exchanges of views between the Israeli and Romanian representatives within international organizations.

Then, the President said that peace and cooperation between peoples are the most sincere and profound aspiration of the government and of each citizen of his country.

With all the hard evidence presented today, when every day there are dead and injured people and damages to borders, Israel does not lose its faith and the hope that this violence will end someday and a fair and lasting peace with the neighbouring countries will be finally reinstated. He concluded that Israel knows and truly appreciates the efforts that Romania is making in this field.

We note that, for the first time at the ceremony of presenting the letters, local and foreign journalists were not allowed, but only photographers and set operators. Goulan, Director of Protocol, said that although they have experienced some problems and the measure adopted irritated the local and foreign media, they decided as such to prevent the occurrence of unwanted news and reports.

During the discussions, I have presented to the President and Minister of Foreign Affairs the basic principles of our foreign policy in relations with other states with different social and political systems, while stressing the need that the bilateral relations to be deeply rooted by increasing trade and the technical-scientific cooperation. I have also expressed the hope that, once diplomatic representation was raised, the initiatives and ideas formulated in terms of cooperation in production and increase of the trade volume will be materialized as soon as possible in the interest of the two countries.

On this last point, President Shazar said that he totally endorse the views expressed and that history will consider, in this field, the decision of raising the representation to the level of embassy as the next step in the area of bilateral relations. AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, vol.2/1969, f. 235-237.

312

201

TELEGRAM OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF ROMANIA TO THE U.N. TO MIRCEA MALI ŢA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,

REGARDING CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS TO RAISING DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE LEVEL OF E MBASSY

WITH THE STATE OF ISRAEL

No. 49 658 August 20, 1969, New York, 20.15 h Secret. Post-haste Raising the diplomatic representation between our country and Israel to the level of

embassy held the attention of UN media and diplomatic circles. 1. American media presents this action, adopted under the current political-military

circumstances in the Middle East, as the result of the independent policy that Romania is promoting in its international relations. There are also commented the U.N. news regarding the actions undertaken by Iraq and U.A.R. (United Arab Republic) in this matter1. In Israel’s case, one assesses that the reason for these actions arises from the news regarding the visit that comrade Nicolae Ceauşescu will pay to Iran2, given the tense relations existent between Iran and Iraq. Less commented, so far, was the action undertaken by U.A.R.

2. We were informed by the international officials Upadhia (Nepal) and Mahgal (Afghanistan) that the Soviet diplomats qualify the actions under the following terms:

a) The measure undertaken by Romania comes to help Israel on the political-diplomatic level in the current international situation and, whether it is intended or not, objectively, comes to support the imperialist forces using Israel as a tool in their colonial policy in the Middle East.

b) Romanian gesture adds up to those actions that have the effect of undermining Soviet Union’s efforts directed, within the bilateral negotiations with the U.S.A., towards identifying a fair solution1, first and foremost to determine Israel to withdraw from the occupied Arab territories.

c) Romania’s initiative encourages, now, before the elections in Israel, those forces in the country advocating for the annexation of the territories occupied in 1967, stimulating them in supporting that Israel is not internationally isolated.

d) Romania has probably enjoyed material benefits following this action and certain facilities in commerce were granted and there were promised “the good Israeli offices” near the U.S. financial circles. It is speculated that within the U.S. Congress a real Hebrew “lobby” in favour of Romania to grant the most-favoured nation clause and other trade related facilities was conducted.

3. Our diplomats and international officials have been thoroughly trained in terms of the responses that must be given to the interlocutors.

1 Following the raising of the diplomatic representation between Romania and Israel (August 17, 1969), the Iraqi government decided on August 18, 1969, to call back the chargé d’affaires to Bucharest and subsequently, the Romanian government, on August 24, 1969, informed the Iraqi government that it has decided to call back its Ambassador to Baghdad. On August 20, the Sudanese government severed the diplomatic relation with Romania and, on August 23 the Egyptian government called back its Ambassador to Romania. At the same time, on August 24, 1969 the Syrian government severed the diplomatic relations with Romania. 2 The official visit of the President of the State Council of the S.R. of Romania in Iran took place within September 1-6 1969. 1See footnote 1 to doc. no. 195.

313

The instructions received on this issue were processed the need to prepare them in a firm and convincing manner was stressed.

From the discussions that we have had so far, the interlocutors were receptive to the arguments presented.

(Ss) Gh. Diaconescu

AMFA, founds Telegrams. New York, vol.4/1969, f. 167-168.

202

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF GEORGE MACOVESCU, FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA ,

WITH RAFAEL BENSHALOM, EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR OF

THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE CEREMONY FOR PRESENTING THE LETTERS OF CREDENCE

No. 17/0570 August 25, 1969, Bucharest Secret On August 19, 1969, 9:30 hours, George Macovescu, the First Deputy Minister of

Foreign Affairs, on credential submission met Rafael Benshalom, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of the State of Israel to the Socialist Republic of Romania.

Menachem Karmi, Counsellor at the Israel Embassy to Bucharest, and Tudor Jianu, Director of Protocol within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also attended the meeting.

At the meeting assisted also Ion Floroiu, Third Secretary, Direction of Cultural Relations.

After introductions and an interchange of civilities, at the question of the First Deputy

Minister of Foreign Affairs, if this is the first visit to Romania, the Ambassador of Israel said that he was born in Cluj, immediately after the World War I, he spent part of his childhood in Timişoara from where he still has strong memories. Next, the Israeli Ambassador said that he is very pleased that he was given the opportunity to come back to Romania and assured the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs that he will make all efforts to continue and further develop the existing relations between the two countries. Israeli Ambassador expressed also his content for the state of the relations between Israel and Romania and for the fact that the diplomatic relations between the two countries were raised to the level of embassy, fact embraced with great satisfaction in Israel and in many other countries of the world. At the same time, he said that he was mandated to convey to the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs greetings on behalf of the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abba Eban and of the General Director of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, Gideon Rafael.

The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs thanked for the greetings that have been sent and asked, in turn, the Israeli Ambassador to convey to Minister Abba Eban and to the General Director Gideon Rafael his thanks and greetings. Also, the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs assured the Israeli Ambassador to Bucharest that the Foreign Affairs Ministry will offer the necessary support to perform his activity in good conditions, showing that, for raising the diplomatic relations to the level of embassy, Romania guided by the principles of its foreign policy, to develop relations in all kind of areas with all the states, regardless of

314

their political beliefs and opinions, being convinced that this is only way to bring their contribution to the peace cause and to the international détente.

Israeli Ambassador said he is mandated by his country’s President and government to

convey to the President of the State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania the official invitation to visit Israel, after his visit to Iran. His country would be very happy if, after the visit to Tehran, the Romanian President would make a stop also in Tel Aviv.

The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he cannot speak on behalf of the President of the State Council, but he would like to inform the Israeli Ambassador that the President has a very busy schedule, because a few days after his return from Tehran, he will receiving the visit of the President of Austria.

Israel’s Ambassador said that he understands that there is no. easy way to achieve this visit and expressed his hope that if it cannot be done now, then this visit would take place in the future.

The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs underlined the particular importance that the high-level visits have, the exchange of views between the heads of states for a better mutual insight, for providing the opportunity to discuss difficult matters and for initiating a useful across countries dialogue, as well as for good will.

Certainly, today’s world is facing many problems that cannot be easily solved, said the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, nevertheless efforts must be made, and we need to prove wisdom in our actions, seek solutions with patience in the spirit of understanding

Israeli Ambassador showed that the factors responsible in the country prove a lot of wisdom and patience and are trying to identify the right path, a common denominator with their counterparts. Given that not only in the part of world where he is coming from are tensions and problems that sometimes seem insurmountable, but also in other parts of the world, the Israeli ambassador pointed out that it is necessary to remain calm, to act with patience and wisdom to solve these difficult problems. His country wants and seeks peace.

Submitting his letters of credence and letters of recall of his predecessor, the

Ambassador of Israel has shown that it is pleased and honoured to begin his activity immediately after his appointment, and for being able to participate to the celebration of the National Day of Romania – on 23 August – which is a great joy for him because on that day of August 23, 1944 he was in Budapest and Romania’s freedom represented a hope for all those who have suffered from the fascism.

The First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs assured the Ambassador of Israel that his mission would enjoy the collaboration and support of Ministry’s leadership, even if difficult problems might occur, the discussions will take place in the spirit of understanding and the Foreign Affairs Ministry will be open to identifying the best solutions.

The Ambassador of Israel said that he would work to continue all the good things that have already been done so far and to further on develop the relations between the two countries.



315

203

TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE BLEJAN, EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR IN SOF IA, TO

THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF S ROMANIA REGARD ING CERTAIN FOREIGN COMMENTS TO THE ACTION OF

RAISING THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTAT ION

No. 66 724 August 27, 1969, Sofia, 19.45 h Top Secret. Post-haste. Raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy for the Romanian Legation

in Israel continues to remain one of the main subjects of discussions in the diplomatic and official circles in Sofia.

I. Bulgarian public figures and the diplomats of the other socialist countries members of C.A.E.R. (*Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), which are not hiding their satisfaction in relation to the reaction of the Arab countries towards our country, say, during their discussions with us, that “Romania as a sovereign state has the right to adopt the measures it sees fit”. They are trying to explain the reaction of the Arab countries in relation to the excessive sensibility of these peoples.

However, the same Bulgarian public figures and diplomats of the socialist countries, in their discussions with other foreign diplomats make negative judgments and instigate the Arab diplomats against Romania.

1. N. Minchev, Director in the P.R. of Bulgaria’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, acknowledged that “to all intents and purposes Romania’s position remains unchanged and Romania is right”, and wanted to mention, though, that the timing was shocking for the Arab people.

Nevertheless, also N. Minchev, during his discussion with the U.A.R Ambassador and in the presence of the Yugoslav Ambassador said, “raising the diplomatic representation to the level of embassy expresses the political attitude of Romania towards the Arab countries”.

The Yugoslav Ambassador told us that, according to his observations, the diplomats of the six socialist countries are instigating the Arab diplomats against Romanian and intend to take advantage of the situation created.

2. Ivan Zurlov, Deputy Director in the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said, “the Arab peoples’ reaction is due to their exaggerated sensitivity to any action of the socialist countries in the relations with Israel and the practice proved that the Arab countries are always ready to take hasty action”. Considering this, Zurlov believes that Romania’s timing was not a “good” one. Wanting to prove that P.R. of Bulgaria “understands” the unfavourable situation created around S.R. of Romania, added that “the Bulgarian side did not want and does not want to make a lot of fuss around this action, so that, until August 26 this year, the Bulgarian media has not published any news about this event”.

3. Polish Embassy Counsellor, A. Gajda, with a touch of malicious satisfaction, tells the Hungarian Counsellorr, A. Sardi, that both Romanian’s action as well as the reaction of the Arab countries should be considered as normal phenomena, something directly concerning the relations between Romania and the Arab countries. “In this matter there are reasons and passions and nobody doubts that. The Arab countries’ reaction is more effervescent and less elastic. Romania had reasons, perhaps calculated, perhaps even suggested by the U.S. President R. Nixon, during his visit to Bucharest”.

316

The Hungarian diplomat, noticing the nuance expressed by Gajda and to end the discussion, said that in his opinion the situation is the result of a misunderstanding and that the Arab countries will reconsider the decisions

4. The diplomats of the Arab countries, for the moment, avoid us and we can notice a certain difference:

a) Syrian Ambassador greets us back, but avoids talking to us; b) On the contrary, the Egyptian Ambassador expressed his regret unto the deterioration

of the relations between our countries, trying to justify that the created situation is not U.A.R.’s fault, but Romania’s, who through the measure adopted manifested an unfriendly attitude towards the Arab countries.

After I’ve explained to length the whole matter, the Egyptian Ambassador answered that he admires the Romanian intelligence, the Romanian foreign policy and that all the explanations that he received will be passed on to his government. He proposed me to pay a visit in 2-3 days when he will have more precise indications.

The Yugoslav Ambassador, K. Miljovski, intervened in my discussion with the U.A.R Ambassador and said, “the point is that this is not about an administrative measure, a common practice, but about the fact that Romania stands for the position of the Resolution of the Security Council”.

II. The diplomats of the occidental countries are following with great interest the evolution of the situation and are interested, especially, in knowing the position and reactions of the socialist countries:

1. E. Turin, Counsellor of the Belgian Embassy, believes that the six socialist countries expect the clarification of the Arab reaction and only after “their prior synchronization and coordination”; the socialist countries will assume a position in favour of the Arab countries.

2. The French Counsellor Bastide, considering as regrettable the situation that occurred, said that the reaction of the Arabs is due to the psychosis created after the arson of the Jerusalem mosque.

3. Italian Secretary I, G. Baldocci concurred that the measure adopted by our country is an usual action in the common practice of the international relations and expressed his opinion that it should have not generated such a reaction from the Arabs.

In the ample explanations given to all interlocutors, our diplomats have insisted on our

firm and principled position on the matter of the conflict in the Near East, on our policy of friendship, solidarity and support towards the struggle of the Arab people.

They’ve explained the real reasons and significance of the respective measure, saying that by maintaining our normal diplomatic relations with Israel offered us the conditions and opportunities to affirm the fairness and the need to respect and apply the Security Council’s Resolution, based on which the resolution of the conflict might be designed. They have also given as example other normal relations, good ones that our countries have with other countries in the world that are attacking each other. One also pointed out that the normal relations with the Arab countries and Israel does not change, in any way, Romania’s position so far towards the Arab countries and that this position has been clearly reaffirmed during the Xth Congress of the RCP by Comrade Nicolae Ceauşescu, General Secretary of RCP and Chairman of the State Council of S.R. of Romania.

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Sofia, vol.1/1969, f. 143-146.

317

204

CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MANESCU, MINIST ER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF S.R. OF ROMANIA, WITH RAFAEL BEN SHALOM,

EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING

THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

No. 17/0616 September 13, 1969, Bucharest Secret On September 11, 09.00 hours, comrade Corneliu Mănescu, the Minister of Foreign

Affairs, met with Rafael Benshalom, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Israel in the Socialist Republic of Romania.

Mircea Andrei, Deputy Director of Protocol Department and Ion Voicu, Secretary II, Legal and Treaties Department also attended the meeting.

The Israeli Ambassador expressed his gratitude for the first visit that the Romanian

Minister of Foreign Affairs is paying and uses this opportunity to convey Abba Eban, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs’ greetings. At the same time, he expresses the “feelings of joy, appreciation and gratitude” for raising the diplomatic representation between Romania and Israel to the level of embassy, which generated a deep satisfaction in Israel. R. Benshalom believes that this will not only lead to the consolidation of the relations between the two countries, but also increase Romania’s prestige in the world. It is true that the echoes coming from some Arab countries were a little bit different and, about this, the Israeli Ambassador points out that the Israeli side welcomed the Romanian government response that, once again, with dignity, proved the consistency of the policy that it promotes. Moreover, added R. Benshalom, there were no. doubts regarding the manner in which the Romanian government will proceed.

Comrade Corneliu Mănescu thanked for the greetings and, referring to the relations

between Romania and Israel said that they are developing normally. Romania stands for the same principled position regarding the situation in the Near East. About the events taking place in this region, the Minister of Foreign Affairs asks R. Benshalom what is the purpose, the reason for the Israeli military actions undertaken during the recent days.

R. Benshalom said that the worst time for Israel after the 1967 war was during August this year. The high numbers of incidents (515), the frequent shooting, and the organized attacks against Israeli representatives abroad have created a very serious situation. This proves that the Arab countries are engaged in a long-term war of attrition against Israel. In the light of such tactics, Israel has to choose between giving in to the attrition and surrender and wear or initiating some response actions against its opponents. The Israeli diplomat admits that Israel’s response is more massive and spectacular, but his country does not understand to engage in an escalation against its opponents.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs showed that the world public opinion has become very sensitive and it is very concerned about the military actions undertaken by Israel. Recent events are significantly influencing the world public opinion, which, for the moment, is less willing to show any sympathy to Israel. Reminding the position adopted by Romania in relation to the conflict in the Near East, comrade Corneliu Mănescu emphasizes the fact that our country stands for the resolution of the conflict based on the implementation of the Security Council Resolution of November 1967. However, Israel does not support this

318

resolution and, for a while now, it has not advanced any proposal to promote dialogue and to make possible the achievement of an agreement. Israel’s position has become more rigid, which makes harder the resolution of the conflict.

The Israeli Ambassador admits that Israel’s position became more rigid and this can be explained by the fact that the public opinion in this country is more and more under the impression that the Arab countries do not want to be valid interlocutors of Israel. The Israeli side notes that Arab countries give any sign of willingness to recognize the existence of Israel as an independent state neither on official channels nor on informal ones. The frequency of incidents confirms it and the arson of the mosque El Aksa [Al-Aqsa] din Jerusalem was used for political purposes. R. Benshalom considers that the situation that Israel is now facing is not a fortunate one, the state not being satisfied by this state of things.

Comrade Corneliu Mănescu reminds the Israeli Ambassador that, at one time, the representatives of the Arab countries stated that they were ready to sign an agreement with Israel, which would have constituted a major step forward. But this favourable moment, when a convenient solution could have been reached, was not exploited1, now, things are different and time is running out for Israel.

The Israeli Ambassador asks for permission to relate about a significant detail for understanding the situation Israel is dealing with. A nationalist poet, Tukan, visited Nasser and asked him what the Palestinians have to do to reach an agreement with Israel and if he believes that someday a modus vivendi can be obtained between U.A.R. and Israel. Nasser answered that the Palestinians have to have patience and do not try to identify a solution, adding that “an agreement regarding the war” might be reached if Israel withdraws the troops from the occupied Arab territories, but he will never sign any act recognizing the existence of Israel.

Later on, R. Benshalom informs that, prior to his arrival in Romania, he had several meetings with persons part of the leadership of the State of Israel, given the great importance of his mission and he can state that his country has nothing is changed in terms of its willingness and desire for peace.

At the of the meeting, the Israeli Ambassador expresses his gratitude for the welcoming and assures the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his commitment to make the most out of his mission in Romania.

Comrade Corneliu Mănescu asks R. Benshalom to convey his greetings to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs and wishes success to the Israeli Ambassador in his activity and reiterates the support of the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


AMFA, founds Israel matter. Problem 220/1969, unpaged.

1 On Feb. 10, 1969, Gamal Abd-el Nasser, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, proposed a 5 points peace plan for the Near East, subject to the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territories occupied in 1967. The plan included: a mutual declaration of non-belligerence, recognizing the right of each state to live in peace, territorial integrity for all countries, including Israel, freedom of navigation on international routes, a fair solution to the Palestinian problem. However, Israel rejected the Egyptian plan.

319

THREE DECADES AGO... NOTES OF MR. VALERIU GEORGESCU, THE FIRST AMBASSADOR OF ROMANIA TO ISRAEL

Almost 30 years have passed since I have left Israel. I have spent over five years here, at

the beginning as Plenipotentiary Minister and then as Ambassador of Romania. On various occasions, both in Israel as well as in other European, African and South-

Eastern Asian countries where I later on worked, when it happened to recollect past events or to relate personal details, many officials, representatives of foreign media publishers and news agencies, more than once asked me why am I not writing about all.

Until now, I have never spoken about the events in Israel or about the position of my country before, during and after the 6 days war. I have always considered that all this ought to be known first by the Romanian and Israeli people.

Now, looking back, I have to confess that I recollect the moments of high political and moral professional satisfaction because before, during and after the 6 days war, I was one of the accredited diplomats in Israel who has to live onsite the political, diplomatic and military dramatic moments of the outburst and progress of this event.

In this context, Romania’s decision not to break the diplomatic relations and to maintain its mission in Tel Aviv, despite Soviet Union’s discontent, one of the great power of that time, was isolated.

One should know that the level and content of the diplomatic relations between

Romania and Israel, before the war, was not one of the best, on the contrary, it was often tense, lacking substance.

I confess that the atmosphere prior to the war got worse starting with the second half of 1966. Political, military and diplomatic events, both from Israel as well as from the neighbouring Arab countries gained intensity previously unknown. At diplomatic level, many initiatives and discussions emerged, even within the U.N. Given the increasing pressure in the area, a certain psychological attitude was prepared, meaning that in the event of an outbreak of military interventions, Israel to take the fault.

In terms of our bilateral relations, we were making efforts that the events taking place in Israel and the neighbouring area to be as well-known as possible and correctly interpreted. At the beginning of 1967, the tension gained excessive amplitude. At that time, Israel had several possibilities, but two were essential: to wait and see what the neighbouring Arab states were doing, if and when they start the military initiative or to start the military action to defend itself and preserve the integrity of the state. As it is known, the first option was adopted, thus triggering the hostility with Egypt, Jordan and during the last part, with Syria.

The position adopted by the State of Israel was interpreted differently by the Great Powers and by many other states, in direct connection with their specific interests, geopolitics and economics, in the Near East as well as in the Middle East.

At that time, Romania did not exercise and, as I believe, it still does not exercise a policy of conjuncture in the respective area. In terms of my relation with other Ambassadors, including with those from socialist states, I have adopted a singular view in assessing the beginning of the military and political events between Israel and the Arab countries. The most heated contradictory discussions on this subject that I have had were with the Soviet Union Ambassador. One time, I have told him frankly and amiably: “I think you confuse me with someone else. I am not a diplomat in your Embassy; I am the Ambassador of Romania. Each of us has the right and obligation to draw his own conclusions on the events taking place in Israel, to send them to his country, along with all the information held, from the most competent sources”.

320

At that critical time, Romania decided not to break the relations with the State of Israel, as did other countries from East, led by the Soviet Union, which considered Israel an aggressor, accusing it of starting the 6 days war.

On this subject, I have noticed different views of Ambassadors from other European countries and from other continents.

I have argued the idea that it cannot be considered an aggressor the one taking the initiative to defend itself, especially because, under the international law, not even UN reached a clear conclusion on the definition of the term aggressor.

Internationally, around the same time, also emerged the idea, in fact widespread, that

Romania maintained its embassy in Israel as a pawn of other Eastern European countries, to serve their interests, to gather information on the developments in this country.

However, this point of view does not reflect reality. Romanian diplomatic mission in Tel Aviv did not represent the interests of any of the countries that broke the diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. All these countries found other countries to represent them, in the Northern Europe, Latin America, but not Romania. The above speculations were the work of some circles who did not see with good eyes maintaining the relations with Israel and who condemned Romania for the brave decision adopted. Furthermore, against Romania there were taken restrictive measures, economically and diplomatically, by some East-European countries, but also by Arab countries. They were even trying to diplomatically isolate Romania.

In this context, it was also circulated in the international media and on TV the idea that maintaining the relations with Israel was favoured also by the fact that the Romanians sent a Jew in Israel, namely Valeriu Georgescu. I was not bothered by this nonsense, because I was not at all bothered to be Jewish for real. I am, however, a Romanian, a Christian, who loves Israel as Israelis love the Romanian people.

In spite all these events and retaliation of some countries towards Romania, we have initiated numerous political and diplomatic actions in Israel, internationally and among Arab countries to bring about a reconciliation of the conflict based on the principle “Peace in return for the withdrawal from the territory and the creation of the independent Palestinian state within an international UN conference” .

All undertaken measures were the logical consequence of the concept of Romania’s

foreign policy to create the appropriate environment and conditions for normal relations between the Near East and Middle East, for the peace and stability in the area.

It is worth noting that after the “6 days war”, Romania decided to increase the level of diplomatic representation to highest and I have to be the first accredited Ambassador of my country to Israel.

The proposal of such a decision was made few years earlier by the Israeli government. By accepting this significant change, the leadership from Bucharest considered that maintaining the diplomatic representation at the level of legation and Plenipotentiary Minister no longer met the stage and especially the mutual will to enhance the bilateral cooperation in many fields.

This subject was re-discussed thoroughly on many occasions, both in Tel Aviv and Bucharest, as well as within U.N. by the two countries’ Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the late Corneliu Mănescu and Abba Eban. Yet, the Romanian side considered necessary to create the best circumstances and to choose the most favourable moment to implement their joint decision, taking into account the complex events taking place in the area, but also in Europe, following the invasion of the Warsaw Pact in Czechoslovakia.

321

Thus, eventually, with patience and tact, in the summer of 1969, the phase of bilateral negotiations was achieved, when the Israeli government’s approval was asked for my appointment as Ambassador that, I admit, was given with a lot of effusion.

On August 19, while my Israeli counterpart was solemnly welcomed to Bucharest, I was submitting, in Jerusalem, my letters of credence to President Zalman Shazar, in the presence of other Israeli officials, among which Madam Golda Meir and Mr. Abba Eban. I still recollect those unique moments, when together with my work comrades, I’ve felt so proud that through my three years efforts, the diplomatic relations between Romania, my country and Israel, have reached the highest level.

It was not, by far, the end of the road, but a beginning designed to substantiate the mutual willingness for cooperation in the interest of both countries and people. However, regarding the fulfilment of this cooperation, I will speak about on a different occasion. September 1999, Bucharest

322

323

INDEX*

A Aaron, Ifrat: 141 Abramov, Alexander N.: 53, 63, 64, 68 Abramov, deputy (MP): 93 Abdalah Ibn Hussein: 15 Adenauer, Konrad: 78 Agami (Auerbach), Moshe: 11, 12, 14, 36 Alexandrowicz [?]: 2 Aline: 142 Allon , Yigal: 66, 134, 136, 145, 150, 151, 183 Amer, Mohammad Abdel-Hakim: 78 Anders, Wladysław: 29 Andrei , Mircea: 204 Aranne, Zalman: 120 Arafat , Yasser: 129 Aref , Abd al-Salam Muhammad: 177 Argaman, Zeev: 51, 52, 58 Argov (Grabovsky), Meir: 37 Aron , Z.: 46 Aronovitz (Aranne), Zalman: 31 Artzi , Yitzhak: 71 Avgar, Mordechai: 116, 119 Avida, Mordechai: 100, 159, 162 Avidan (Walter), Moshe: 5, 6, 9, 39, 86, 91, 92, 95 Avner, Gershon (Hirsh): 169 Avneri , Uri: 79 Avriel , Ehud (Yehouda): 24, 26, 29, 58 Ayalon, Zvi (Tsvi): 94, 97-99, 103, 107, 110-112, 114 B Baldocci, G.: 203 Ball, Francisca Fernandez: 142 Bar-Yehouda, Yisrael: 79 Bartur , Moshe: 51, 54 Baruch, Niv: 38, 39 Baruch, R.: 51 Bar-Zakai (Bardaki), Dr. Natan: 65; Mrs. ~: 65 Barzilai , Yisrael: 69, 152, 160, 185 Bastide [F?]: 203 Bălaj , Teofil: 165 Bălan, Ştefan: 120 Bărbulescu, O.: 126 __________________________________ * The figure indicates the document’s number.

Bârlădeanu, Alexandru: 28 Begin, Menachem: 15, 142, 145, 151 Bejarano [?]: 5 Beker, Aharon.: 141 Ben Aaron (Aharon), Yitzhak: 68, 70 Ben Gurion, David: 5, 6, 8-11, 14-17, 22, 27, 29, 31, 37, 46, 48, 62, 66-68, 70, 71, 76-79, 84, 136, 138, 145 Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak: 46, 65, 78, [112, 115bu]; Madam ~: 48, 65 Bendor, Samuel (Shmuel): 76, 77 Benshalom, Rafael: 202, 204 Bentov, Mordechai: 54, 134 Bernadotte, Folke, count: 4 Bernstein, Peretz: 37, 46 Blaustein, Jacob (Yaakov): 26, 31 Blejan, Nicolae: 203 Bodrov, Mikhail F.: 70 Brandt , Willy: 128 Brătianu, Constantin I.C.: 5 Brezhnev, Leonid Ilyich: 159 Brucan, Silviu: 62 Bulganin, Nikolai Al.: 68 Bull , Odd, general: 129 Bunaciu, Avram: 82 Bunche, Ralph Johnson: 157, 168 Burlacu, Petru: 129, 134, 137-139, 143, 145, 146, 150, 151, 153, 157, 172, 173, 177, 182, 183, 186, 188-191, 195, 196, 198-200 C Carmel, Yossi: 65 Carmel, Moshe: 134, 136, 142 Ceauşescu, Nicolae: [126], 139, 147, 163, 181, 185-187, 194, 201-203 Celac, Sergiu: 111, 196 Chelouche, Aviezer: 51, 108, 126, 128, 137, 156, 186 Chervenkov, Vilko V.: 35 Chitic , Gheorghe: 55, 56 Chivu, Stoica: 67, 76, 77, [106], 112 Chuvakhin, Dmitri St.: [133], 139 Cioară, Gheorghe: 153-155, 186 Cioroiu , Nicolae: 6-18, 20, 21, 23, 29

324

Cleja, Ştefan: 126 Cogan, N.: 52 Cohen, Jean: 61, 62 Cohen, Idov: 30, 42, 47 Cohn, Aron: 31 Comay, Michael S.: 78 Corbeanu, Mircea: 119 Covaci, Ion: 79, 90, 93 Curavale, Dumitru: 148, 186, 192, 194 D Dagan, Avigdor: 190, 191, 195 Dak, Moshe: 181 Davidovici, Paul: 5-7, 12, 15, 21-25, 27-33, 35-37 Davis, Dr. John H.: 78 Dayan, Moshe: 68, 78, 79, 93, 96, 136, 145, 146, 150-152, 167, 171 Dăianu, Ionel: 38 Dedulia, Ivan: 95 De Gaulle, Charles: 109, 130, 177, 186 Derech [?]: 70 Dianu, Barbu: 5-7, 22, 23, 26, 29 Diaconescu, Gheorghe: 201 Dillon , Douglas D.: 78 Dimitrov , Georgi M.: 5 Diţulescu, T.: 81 Dori , Jacob (Ya’acov): 5 Doron, Eliezer: 96, 104, 105, 109, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, 126, 163, 168, 174, [176], 180, 184, 186-189, 192-195 Douek [?]: 165 Dov Tamari: 56 Dov Satat: 90 Dragoş, Gheorghe: 116 Drugman, I.: 139 Dubček, Alexander: 181 Dumitr ăchescu, Constantin: 182, 183 Dumitrescu, Vasile: 75, 82 E Eban, Abba: 78, 93, 104-106, 109, 114-116, 118, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 136, 143-147, 151, 152, 154, 157, 163, 164, 168, 169, 171, [176], 179, 183, [184], 185, 187-192, 194, 199, 200, 202, 204 Eichmann, Adolf: 77, 78 Eisenhower, Dwight David: 78; doctrine ~: 66 Eisenstadt [?]: 23 Eshel, Arie: 55, 65 Elian, Arieh: 118 Eliasiv (Eliashiv), Dr. Shmuel: 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29 Eminescu, Mihai: 22, 23 Enache, Ion: 110 Eshel, Aryeh: 55, 56, 65

Eshkol, Levy: 73, 78, 91, 93, 96, 98, 105, 109, 129, 132, 135, 136, [143], 145, 146, 149, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 162, 167, 172, 175, 179, 183, 184, 186 Eytan, Walter: 22, 24, 25, 29, 65, [192] F Fawzi, Mahmud: 74 Feldman, Meir (Myer): 93 Filderman, Dr. Wilhelm: 36, 62 Florea, Lucian, archimandrite: 131 Floroiu , Ion: 202 Foca, Hirsch: 61 Frankel, Yitzhak: 23 Frânţescu, Caius: 57-60 Friedman, see Eliasiv Fulbright , William J.: 78 G Gajda, A.: 203 Galili , Yisrael: 123, 128 Gall, M.: 52 Ganea, I.: 80 Gaulan, Y.: 105 Geamănu, Grigore: 97 Georgescu, Ion: 83 Georgescu, Valeriu: 103-106, 108, 109, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120-125, 127-141, 143-148, 150, 151, 153-157, 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169-173, 175, 177, 183, 185, 186, 188-192, 194, 195, 198-200 Gheorghiu-Dej, Gheorghe: 42, 62, 97, 98 Ghersin, family: 47 Gideon, Z.: 5, 6, 9 Giosan, Nicolae: 186, 192 Gliga, Vasile: 162, 193 Goebbels, Joseph Paul: 140 Goldberg, Arthur: 144,147 Goldman, Dr. Nahum: 33, 62, 71, 78 Goldstücker, Edvart: 22, 29 Gomułka, Wladysław: 15, 140 Gordon, Jon: 28, 51 Goulan, Y.: 105, 200 Gromyko, Andrei A.: 14, 96, 144, 147 Groza, Dr. Petru: 35, 57 Gruenwald [?]: 22 Guiney, D’Alen [?]: 167 Guyon, Edouard-Félix: 5, 29; Madame ~: 29 H Hacoen (Hakohen), David: 152, 156, 171 Hadow, Michael R.: 170 Hajeck, Jiři: 181 Halevi, Eliezer: 12, 27

325

Hallstein, Walter: 122; doctrine ~: 122 Hamad, Muhammad Fahmy: 176 Hammarskjöld , Dag: 78, 129 Hapoel Hamizrachi, Rafael: 45 Harell , Arieh: 57, 58, 60, 67, 73; Mrs. ~: 59 Harriman , Averell W.: 70 Hazan, Yaakov: 141 Heimsohn, Leon: 31 Helm, Knox: 5 Hendel: 141 Henin, Sasha David: 149 Hertzel, Theodor: 77 Hitler , Adolf: 66, 85 Holm [?] : 5 Horn , General Carl Carlsson von ~: 84 Horovitz , Moses: 101 Horowitz , David: 92 Hussein I, Ibn Talal: 163, 166, 187 Huţanu, Virgil E.: 41-47, 51 I Iachil, see Yahil Ilan , Arie: 129 Ilya , archimandrite: 29 Ion, Petre: 51 Ionescu, Dionisie: 94, 107, 116, 119 Ionescu, Neagu: 115, 139, 142, 143, 147, 149, 152, 178, 181 Istinely [?]: 53 Iuda: 64 J Jarring , Gunnar: 152, 157, 160-165, 167-174, 179, 183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 195 Jianu, Tudor: 165, 202 Johnson, Lyndon B.: 93, 130, 151, 162, 168 Johnston, Eric J.: 91 Joseftal, Dr. Giora (Georg): 78 Jurza, Milan: 95 Justinian Marina , Patriarch: 81 K Kadar , Lau: 63 Kamin , Baruch: 47 Kaplan, H.: 51, 54 Kaplan, Dr. L., Mrs. ~: 73 Kargman, Yisrael: 156 Karmi , Menachem: 196, 198, 202 Kasavubu, Joseph: 79 Kayemeth Lelsrael, Karen: 36 Keysari, G.: 155 Kennedy, John F.: 78, 93 Khrushchev, Nikita S.: 70, 78, 95

Klaus, Dr. Josef: 158, 202 Kohavi-Stern, Samy I.: 36, 45, 56 Kohen, see Cohen Kohn: 22 Kol , Moshe: 113 Korn , Yitzhak: 65, 72; Mrs. ~: 65 Korn , Z.: 61 Kostov, Traicho: 15 Kosygin, Alexander N.: 140, 159 Kun Béla: 15 L Laor , Daniel: 51 Lavon, Pinhas: 46, 78, 79 Lavretki [?]: 15 Lenin, Vladimir I.: 15 Levavi, Arieh (Leibmann): 29, 30, 92, 104 Levin, Misha: 31 Levontino [?]: 43 Lieberman [?]: 29 Limon , general: 142 Lindsay, John: 78 Lipatti , Valentin: 162 Livni : 37 Loç [?]: 5, 29 Loker , Zvi: 30 Lumumba, Patrice: 78 Lustig [?] : 5 Lutz , Kadish: 136, 154 M MacMillan , Harold M.: 78 Macovei, Pompiliu: 22, 98, 186 Macovescu, George: 13, 22, 83, 178-180, 185, 186, 189, 192-194, 197, 202 Mahgal: 201 Mali ţa, Mircea: 87, 152, 163, 168, 174, 201 Maniu , Iuliu: 5, 62 Manu, Petru: 61-66, 68-73, 75, 76, 78, 105 Mao Zedong: 95 Marmor [?]: 181 Margalit , Elkana: 57, 59, 60 Markti [?] : 5 Maurer , Ion Gheorghe: 98, 99, 128, 141, 143, 144, 147, 155, 176, 179, 184, 186, 192-194 Măgura [?]: 52 Mănescu, Corneliu: 80, 94, 96, 98, 105, 106, 111, 115, 116, 118, 122, 126, 128, 143, 144, 147, 152, 163, 172, 180, 183, 186-189, 197, 204 McDonald, James G.: 5, 22, 29 Meir (Meyersohn), Golda: 5, 22, 55, 61, 66, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 109, 136,148 Mezincescu, Eduard: 89, 98, 104, 109, 110, 113 Micu , Nicolae: 89

326

Mikunis , Samuel (Shmuel): 15, 22, 46, 95, 127, 139, 145, 149, 177 Miljovski , K.: 203 Minchev, N.: 203 Mironenco, Mircea: 168, 174, 180 Mizrachi , Leon: 30, 31, 36 Mobutu , Joseph Desire: 79 Morgenthau Jr., Henry: 29, 31 Moris , Jacob [Yaakov]: 181 Mukhin , Mikhail L.: 5, 6, 22 N Namir , Mordechai: 2, 11, 14, 98 Napoleon I: 46 Nasser, Gamal Abdel: 66, 70, 74, 78, 117, 129, 139, 146-148, 152, 158, 161, 170, 174, 179, 183, 186, 187, 204 Nedelcu, Gheorghe: 100 Nedivi, U.: 51 Neghuj-Schwartz, Eleonora: 101 Nissim, Isaac: 63, [64] Nixon, Richard M.: 78, 141, 197, 203 Nkrumah , Kwame: 79 O Olshan, Yitzhak: 64 P Paasio, Rafael: [130] Palmor, Eliezer: 143, 147 Pandermalis, Pavlos: 69 Parhon, Constantin I.: 3, 6, 19, 26, 60, 65 Pat, Jacob (Yaakov): 27 Pauker, Ana: 1-7, 10, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31-33, 36, 37, 40 Pauls, Dr. Rolf Friedemann: 142 Pavel, Dan: 52 Pedatzur, David: 142 Peinsipp, Dr. Walter: 142 Pele, Gheorghe: 158, 161 Peres, Simon (Shimon): 78, 79, 136, 142 Peretz, see Peres Petrescu: 73 Petri, Mihai: 51, 52 Piłsudski, Josef: 46 Pilu, Gheorghe: 51, 57, 59, 60 Plătăreanu, M.: 187, 193 Popescu, Dumitru: 84-86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100-102, 105, 108, 109, 113 Popescu, Marcel: 52 Prafai, Michael: 181 Preoteasa, Grigore: 16, 38, 57 Pricop, Ioari: 49-51, 53

Purcaru, Augustin: 118 Pushkin, Alexander S.: 5 R Rabin, Yitzhak: 136 Rabinovich, M.: 68, 70 Radai [Berman]: 5 Rafael (Raphael), Gideon: 171, 173, 185-187, 189, 192-194, 196, 202 Rafael (Raphael), Yitzhak: 37 Ralea, Mihail: 76 Rangheţ, Boris: 97 Rapacki, Adam: 88 (Rapacki Plan), 96, 109 Răducanu, Graziella: 107 Rădulescu, (Gheorghe) Gogu: 82 Răuţă, V.: 126, 128 Remetz, Moshe David: 14 Reza Pahlavi Mohammad, shah: 78 Riftin , Jacob (Yaakov): 15 Rockefeller, Nelson A.: 71 Rojinsky [?]: 29 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano: 29 Rosen, Dr. Moses: [60], 63, 85, 164 Rubin, Reuven: 3, 9-12, 14, 18, 26, 40 Rudenco, Teodor: 60 S Sahar, Yehezkel: 5 Salmon, Katriel: 80-82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94 Sanon, Y.: 166 Sapir, Pinhas: 78, 124, 126-128, 136, 141, 145, 151 Saraga, Fred: 36 Sasson, Eliyahu (Elian): 150 Schein [?]: 40 Schmidt, Schmarije: 101 Sellinger, Abraham: 77, 78 Şerban, N.: 80 Sergeev, Nikolai P.: 5 Sfătcău, Ion: 166 Sfetea, I.: 198 Shafran (Şafran), Alexandru: 36 Shapira, Yaakov-Shimshon: 160 Sharef (Sherf), Zeev: 22, 153, 155, 156, 160 Sharett (Shertok), Moshe: 1-6, 9-12, 14, 16, 31, 32, 35, 42, 46-51, 54, 56, 78 Shavy, Ehuda (Yehouda): 135, 156 Shazar (Rubashov), Zalman: 106, 115, 198, 200 Shelepin, Alexander N.: 159 Shek, Zeev: 142, 158, 161 Shertok, see Sharett Shneerson, M.: 121 Shukairi (Sukeiri), Ahmed: 78, 123 Siebelman (Rabbi): 62

327

Simedrea, Titus: [77] Simionescu, Cristofor: 56 Simon, Dr. Michael: 5, 6, 22 Siroski: 181 Slociver, Samuel: 101 Sneh (Sne), Moshe: 19, 36, 139, 149, 177 Snowman, Edward: 95 Soken, Y.: 142 Sprinzak, Yosef: 6, 22, 48 Stalin, J.V.: 95 Stănescu, Constantin I.: 39 Stănescu, Ion: 79 Stern, Avraham (Stern Group): 79 Stevenson, Adlai E.: 78 Sardi [Szardi?], A.: 203 T Talbot, Phillips: 93 Tamari , Dr. Dov: 56 Tee, Mark: 29 Tekoah, Yosef: 114, 128, 169 Tenenbaum, Bernard: 78 Tito , Josip Broz: 15, 146, 158, 161, 183, 186 Titus (Emperor): 63 Tocaci [?]: 45 Toma, Ana: 10, 24-27, 32, 34 Truman , Harry S.: 31, 37 Tsarapkin, Semion K.: 15 Tubi , Tewfik: 19, 149 Tukan: 204 Turin , E.: 203 U Upadhia: 201 U Thant: 87, 115, 123, 129, 152, 157, 161, 162, 169, 171, 172, 180 V Vancea, Nicolae: 159 Vacasov, Yamay: 51

Verdeţ, Ilie: 124, 154 Vicol, Vasile: 51 Vilner , see Wilner Virgin , J.: 51 Vîşinschi, Vladimir: 82, 87, 98, 99, 103, 112,126 Vyshinsky, Andrei J.: 15, 96 Voicu, Ion (violin player): 121 Voicu, Ion: 204 Voss [?]: 29 Vremeş, M.: 108 W Walter , see Avidan Moshe Warhaftig, Dr. Zerach, Rabbi: 160 Weiss, Elisabeta: 77 Weizmann, Chaim: 5, 6, 29, 36, 40, 71 Weizmann, Madam ~: 40 Wilner (Vilner), Meir: 15, 19, 22, 47, 127, 145, 149 Wilson, Harold: 130 Wingate [?]: 68 Warhaftig , Zerach: 160 Y Yaari , Meir: 79 Yahil , Chaim (Haim): 84 Yegor, Moshe: 76 Yershov (Ershov), Pavel Iv.: 5, 22, 29; Mrs. Yershova [?]: 29 Youlou, Fulbert: 78 Z Zuaiyin (Zaien), Yusuf (Youssef): 117 Zavu, Costache: 94 Zerubavel, Yaakov: 5 Zeiger (Zeigher) [?]: 62 Zenguliev [?]: 53 Zissu [?]: 40 Zurlov , Ivan: 203

328

329

March 14, 1949, Tel Aviv.

Facsimile of Moshe Sharett’s telegram, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel, to Ana Pauker, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, regarding

the new Government lead by David Ben Gurion.

330

Legation of the Popular Republic of Romania September 26, 1949, Tel Aviv No. 165-A

Comrade Minister,

It is my honour of reporting the following: I’ve arrived to the Port of Haifa on September 11, in the afternoon; I was welcomed by comrade Davidovici and the Deputy of Protocol Z. Giveon, Deputy Director of Orient Department within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Târgu-Mureş native), by a superior public officer of the customs service and a police inspector. After being welcomed by the Deputy of Protocol, on behalf of the Ministry, I’ve thanked him and I’ve said: I hope I can contribute to the development of amicable relations between the two countries. I did not notice that there was another person standing next to us who was not introduced. He was the correspondent for the Newspaper AL HAMISMAR (MAPAM Party), who seeing that I’ve only answered to the greeting, asked me whether I have something to state. My answer was that everything I needed to say, I’ve told to the representative of the Ministry. Next day, the above mentioned newspaper, something completely different was printed (which I’ve sent you in due time). From Haifa to Tel Aviv we went by car, the car belonging to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the car with which Giveon came. On September 13, I was going to pay a visit to the Chief of Protocol, Dr. Simon, but I didn’t until September 16, on the occasion of the admittance to Minister Sharett. At the meeting with Minister Sharett took part from our side comrade Davidovici and from their side Dr. Simon and Walter. The meeting lasted for approximately 20 minutes. Sharett, while welcoming me to the State of Israel, expressed, at the same time, his gratitude towards P.R. of Romania, country that was among the first recognizing the State of Israel. I’ve answered by conveying best regards on behalf of comrade Ana Pauker, and expressed my hope that I could count on his support in fulfilling my duties […].

331

September 26, 1949, Tel Aviv. Facsimile fragment of the first report of Nicolae Cioroiu,

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Israel, to Ana Pauker, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania, concerning his arrival.

332

April 10, 1950, Hakirya. Facsimile of the letter of Chaim Weizmann, President of the State of Israel (1948-1952) accrediting

Ehud Avriel as Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Bucharest.

333

April 15, 1957, Bucharest. Solemn moment of receiving by Dr. Petru Groza, President of the Presidium of Grand National Assembly of Romania, the letters of credence of Arieh Harell,

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the State of Israel at Bucharest.

334

ION GHEORGHE MAURER (1902-2000) Minister of Foreign Affairs (1957-1958),

President of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly (1958-1961) and of the Council of Ministers of Romania (1961-1974).

March 3, 1959, Bucharest. Solemn moment of submitting his credentials by Shmuel Bendor, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister

Plenipotentiary of the State of Israel to Bucharest, to Academician Mihail Ralea, Vice-president of the Grand National Assembly of P.R. of Romania,

335

April 14, 1961, Bucharest. Ştefan Voitec, Vice-president of Romania’s State Council, receiving the letters of credence of Katriel Salmon, Envoy Extraordinary and

Minister Plenipotentiary of the State of Israel to Bucharest.

April 14, 1961, Bucharest. Solemn moment of submitting his credentials by Katriel Salmon,

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the State of Israel to Bucharest. First on the left, Corneliu Mănescu, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania (1961-1972)

336

August 19, 1969, Jerusalem. Israeli Guard of Honour saluting Valeriu Georgescu,

the first Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to Israel, on the occasion of his arrival at the Presidential Palace.

August 19, 1969, Jerusalem. President of the State of Israel, Zalman Shazar, receiving the letters of credence of Valeriu Georgescu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania.

337

August 19, 1969, Jerusalem. Following the ceremony of letters of credence submission, Valeriu Georgescu, Ambassador

Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of S.R. of Romania, raising a glass of Champaign with President Zalman Shazar and Abba Eban, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel.

May 1972, Bucharest. Continuing dialogue... Nicolae Ceauşescu, President of Romania’s State Council welcoming

Madam Golda Meir, Prime Minister of the State of Israel. (Sergiu Celac, future Foreign Minister, as interpreter).

338