Israel Review

ROMANIA-ISRAEL
65 YEARS OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
Vol. I
1948 – 1969
THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE PUBLICATION OF
DIPLOMATIC DOCUMENTS
Series BILATERAL RELATIONS
Series DUMITRU PREDA

coordinator
Volume VICTOR BOŞTINARU

coordinator
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)
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
V
VI
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 who-
ever 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.
VII
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
VIII
Ambassador Avraham MILLO
ON THE ISRAELIAN-ROMANIAN RELATIONS:

AT THEIR 50th 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).
IX
X
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
XI
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.
XII
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.
XIII
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.
XIV
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
XV
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
XVI
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
XVII
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.
XVIII
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
XIX
XX
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.
XXI
XXII
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
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
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
XXIII
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
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
THE TENSION INCURRED IN THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 24
13. November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY
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
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
REGARDING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAPAM PARTY 34
REGARDING HIS CONVERSATIONS AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO CERTAIN
PROBLEMS INCURRED BY BILATERAL RELATIONS 35
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW CONSULATE IN JERUSALEM 35
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
XXIV
20. January 11, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY
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
ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC LIFE IN ISRAEL 40
23. February 11, 1950, Tel Aviv REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
ROMANIA, REGARDING THE DIPLOMATIC MISSION’S ACTIVITY 42
24. February 20, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION
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
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
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
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
XXV
32. September 21, 1950, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION
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
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
ON ISSUES RELATE TO BILATERAL RELATIONS 66
39. April 21, 1952, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
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
REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS OF THE BILATERAL RELATIONS
AND THE LUNCH ORGANIZED BY THE WIFE OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SOVIET-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 68
42. August 7, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
REGARDING THE DISCUSSION IN KNESSET ON THE ISSUE OF
EMIGRATION OF THE FAMILIES FROM ROMANIA 69
REGARDING THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS 70
44. November 10, 1953, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION
REGARDING THE ISSUE OF REPATRIATIONS 70
XXVI
45. November 17, 1953, Tel Aviv NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
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
REGARDING PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME
ZIONIST LEADERS 75
REGARDING PROTESTS TO THE MEASURES TAKEN AGAINST SOME
ZIONIST LEADERS 76
49. June 12, 1954, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
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
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
XXVII
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
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
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
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA CONCERNING THE REINTEGRATION OF THE
JEWISH FAMILIES 96
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF
RABBI OF SEFARD CULT FROM ISRAEL AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF
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
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISSUES
RELATED TO THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE
STATEOF ISRAEL 104
XXVIII
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
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE POLITICAL CRISIS
FROM ISRAEL AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 109
69. February 22, 1958, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE
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
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
ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV WITH GOLDA MEIR, MINISTER
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
XXIX
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
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
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
REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE
INCIDENTS AT THE BORDER WITH SYRIA 145
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
MALIȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF , ROMANIA,
WITH KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER
REGARDING THE SOVIET PROPOSAL FOR DENUCLEARIZATION OF
THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA AND FOR SOLVING THE ARAB-ISRAELI
CONFLICT 150
XXX
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
REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW MINISTER
REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE
USE OF THE JORDAN WATERS AND THE ARAB LEAGUE 153
BILATERAL RELATIONS AND ON SUPPORTING ROMANIA’S
CANDIDACY AT THE U.N. CONFERENCE FOR TRADE AND
DEVELOPMENT 154
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
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
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
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
BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE PLANNED VISIT OF THE TEL AVIV
MAYOR IN ROMANIA 164
XXXI
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
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
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL CULTURAL
EXCHANGES 167
101. February 2, 1965 Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION
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,
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
AVIV, TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
ROMANIA, ON THE STATE OF ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIP 172
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
OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE COMPLETION OF HIS
MISSION IN ROMANIA 175
XXXII
108. 26 April 1966, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU
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
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
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
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
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS,
FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION 182
113. June 18, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY
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
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
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
XXXIII
117. November 11, 1966, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION
REGARDING ISRAELI PERCEPTIONS ON THE EGYPTIAN-SYRIAN
MILITARY AGREEMENT 188
118. December 16, 1966, Tel Aviv CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU
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,
AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
REGARDING THE COLLABORATION AND THE CULTURAL
EXCHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES 192
ON THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI CULTURAL EXCHANGES 193
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
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,
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
THE DRAFT OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC AGREEMENT 197
XXXIV
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
REGARDING THE VISIT OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO
BUCHAREST 201
128. May 13, 1967, Jerusalem CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU
REGARDING THE PROGRESS AND THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE
TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
ROMANIA, REGARDING INCREASING TENSIONS IN ISRAELI-ARAB
RELATIONS 205
REGARDING THE ESCALATION OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN
INCIDENTS AND MOBILIZATION OF BOTH ARMIES 206
REGARDING THE DAMAGE TO THE ROMANIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
IN JERUSALEM DUE TO THE JORDANIAN-ISRAELI ARTILLERY
SHOOTING 207
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 208
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN CONFLICT 209
TEL AVIV TO PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ISRAELI POSITION
TOWARDS THE PEACE AGREEMENTS 210
REGARDING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES
FOR NORMALIZING THE INTERNAL SITUATION 211
REGARDING CERTAIN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM ISRAEL 212
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE
ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT 213
XXXV
REGARDING THE SITUATION IN ISRAEL AFTER THE WAR ENDED 214
139. June 20, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY
ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST
PARTY TOWARDS THE CONFLICT WITH THE ARAB COUNTRIES 215
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
CERTAIN ISRAELI AND FOREIGN COMMENTS TO ROMANIA’S
ATTITUDE ON THE ISSUE OF THE NEAR EAST 217
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
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
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
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
REGARDING THE POSITION OF ROMANIA AND OF THE ISRAELI
GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST 224
XXXVI
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
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
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
REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CRISES IN THE MIDDLE
EAST 233
153. December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU,
AVIV, TO PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ECONOMIC COOPERATION
WITH ISRAEL 234
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
AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA
REGARDING THE ISRAELI PRESS COVERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN-
ISRAELI ECONOMIC NEGOTIATIONS 236
REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF THE BILATERAL ECONOMIC
COOPERATION AND ITS POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE 237
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S POSITION
TO THE REGIONAL CRISIS AND ITS RELATIONS WITH THE ARAB
COUNTRIES 238
XXXVII
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,
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
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,
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
REGARDING THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEAR
EAST 246
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
REGARDING THE MEASURES TAKEN BY THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES
IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES 251
REGARDING THE ISRAELI REACTION TO THE LATEST ACTIONS OF
THE “AL FATAH” ORGANIZATION 252
XXXVIII
168. March [1], 1968, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA
MALIȚA, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER
REGARDING THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT ON THE
JARRING MISSION IN THE NEAR 253
TEL AVIV TO PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON THE EVOLUTION OF PEACE
NEGOTIATIONS IN THE NEAR EAST 255
REGARDING REACTIONS TO THE IMMINENT RESUMPTION OF THE
AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS 256
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
PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON ROMANIA’S ZONAL
DIPLOMATIC POSITION IN SUPPORT OF THE EFFORTS TO SOLVE
THE NEAR EAST PROBLEMS 258
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
MALIȚA, 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
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
ROMANIA, REGARDING HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE HEAD OF
THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY ON THE ISSUE OF SOLVING THE
NEAR EAST 266
XXXIX
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
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
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,
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
OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE BILATERAL
RELATIONS AND THE SITUATION IN THE NEAR EAST 287
XL
187. February [22], 1969, Bucharest CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF
CORNELIU MANESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE NEAR EAST SITUATION AND THE
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
ROMANIA, ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC
REPRESENTATION 294
PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE
DPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION 296
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
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
BUCHAREST, FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN
ROMANIA 304
195. April 28, 1969, Tel Aviv TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY
ROMANIA, REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 305
XLI
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
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
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,
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
REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS 317
XLII
DOCUMENTS
2
1
TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER1), MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
ROMANIA, TO MOSHE SHARETT2), 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).
3
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.
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
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).
4
3
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
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 AFFAIRS 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.
5
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.
6
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.
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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).
11
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).
12
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.
13
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.
14
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
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.
15
6
REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER
PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER,
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.
16
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
17
7
REPORT OF NICOLAE CIOROIU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER,
REGARDING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MISSION’S ACTIVITY
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
18
- 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.
(Ss) Nicolae Cioroiu
8
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
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
19
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.
20
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.
21
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).
22
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.
23
11
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING
THE MEETING WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 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.
12
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.
24
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
ANA PAUKER, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 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.
25
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.
26
14
THE CONVERSATION WITH MOSHE SHARETT,
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.
27
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).
28
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.
29
15
THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MAPAM PARTY1)
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.
30
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.
31
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).
32
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.
33
16
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.
34
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.
17
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.
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.
35
18
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA IN RELATION 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.
19
REPORT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO
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.
36
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.
37
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).
38
20
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 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.
39
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
22
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.
40
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).
41
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.
(Ss) Paul Davidovici

Chargé d’affaires a.i. at the
Legation from Israel
23
THE DIPLOMATIC MISSION’S ACTIVITY

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
42
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.

Chargé d’affaires a.i. at the P.R.R.
Legation from Tel Aviv
43
24
THE 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
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 ROMANIA TO
THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV ON SUBMITTING
A DIPLOMATIC PROTEST TO THE ISRAELI AUTHORITIES
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.
44
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
45
27
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
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
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.
46
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 ADDRESSED TO

ANA PAUKER, THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA
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.
47
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.
48
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
49
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.
50
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
THE ASSEMBLY OF THE ASSOCIATION OF JEWS FROM ROMANIA
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).
51
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
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.
52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
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).
***)
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.
55
32
CERTAIN POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT
TOWARDS ROMANIA
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.
56
33
NOTE OF PAUL DAVIDOVICI, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF
THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, TO ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE POSITION OF
THE ISRAELI PARTIES TOWARDS THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE
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
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).
57
34
THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV FORWARDING
A VERBAL RESPONSE OF THE ISRAELI M.F.A. IN REGARD TO
CERTAIN ROMANIAN DEBTS
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
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
58
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).
59
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
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”.
60
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
61
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.
62
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.
63
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
64
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
65
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.
(Ss) Davidovici
38
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.
66
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)
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.
67
40
CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY BILATERAL RELATIONS AND
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

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.
68
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).
69
43
THE BILATERAL TRADE RELATIONS

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.
70
45
NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO
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.
71
46
REPORT OF VIRGIL HUŢANU, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF
THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV, TO
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).
72
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.
73
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.
74
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.
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.
75
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.
76
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.
49
THE ISRAELI MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE ROMANIAN GOVERNMENT’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.
77
50
NOTE OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL AVIV TO
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
78
51
REPORT OF ENG. MIHAI PETRI, HEAD OF
THE ROMANIAN ECONOMIC DELEGATION, TO
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,
79
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.
80
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.
81
- 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.
82
- 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 ISRAEL 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.
83
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 CONCERT
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
84
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).
85
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
86
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.
87
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 RELATIONS
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
88
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.
89
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.
90
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 FRÂNŢESCU, 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 Harell1), 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.
91
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
ROMANIA, REGARDING THE ACCREDITATION OF
THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
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
92
“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 Margalit1), 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.
93
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.
94
61
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION 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)
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.
95
62

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. Brucan1), 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.
96
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
97
63

REGARDING THE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF RABBI OF SEFARD CULT
FROM ISRAEL AND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS
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.
98
“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.
99
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
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.
100
64
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT SENT BY THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN TEL
AVIV SENT TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA
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).
101
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
65
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF THE ROMANIAN LEGATION IN
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).
102
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
103
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 AND
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.
104
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.
105
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.
106
“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 STOICA1), 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
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.
107
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”
108
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.
109
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
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).
110
69
REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY THE ISRAELI POLICY
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.
111
70
TEL AVIV WITH THE DELEGATION OF THE AHDUT HAAVODA PARTY SENT
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.
112
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).
113
71
TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK ARTZI, GENERAL SECRETARY OF
THE PROGRESSIVE PARTY, REGARDING THE BILATERAL RELATIONS 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.
114
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
TEL AVIV WITH YITZHAK KORN, PRESIDENT OF H.O.R., REGARDING THE
ISSUE OF THE EMIGRATION OF THE JEWISH POPULATION FROM ROMANIA
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”).
115
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
TEL AVIV WITH GOLDA MEIR, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF BILATERAL RELATIONS AND
THE SITUATION OF THE ROMANIAN CHURCH FROM JERUSALEM
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).
116
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 DAMASCUS
ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA
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.
117
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.
75
COMMUNICATION 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
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.
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.
118
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,
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”.
119
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
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. [...].
120
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.).
121
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.
122
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 DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
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.
123
“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
124
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.
125
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%,
126
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).
127
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).
128
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).
129
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.
130
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.
131
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).
132
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).
133
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.
134
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.
135
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
TEL AVIV WITH THE EDITORIAL OFFICE OF “HAOLAM HAZE” MAGAZINE
REGARDING CERTAIN PROBLEMS INCURRED BY
THE DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL
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).
136
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
137
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).
138
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 MĂNESCU1), MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON2),
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.
139
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
140
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.
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 AND
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.
141
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).
142
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.
83
NOTE REGARDING THE SITUATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN
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).
143
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
144
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.
145
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

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.
146
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 DIVISION
WITHIN THE ISRAELI MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REGARDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF BILATERAL RELATIONS

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
147
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 MALIŢA1), DEPUTY MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH KATRIEL SALMON,
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.
148
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).
149
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).
150
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 MEZINCESCU1),

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH
KATRIEL SALMON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
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).
151
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
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
152
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
91
THE POSITION OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT TO THE USE OF
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.
153
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
BILATERAL RELATIONS AND ON SUPPORTING ROMANIA’S CANDIDACY 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
154
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

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).
155
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).
156
94
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON1),
THE NEW ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY 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.
157
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.
158
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”.
159
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
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
160
“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 ROMANIA AND
THE RELATIONS WITH THE OTHER SOCIALIST STATES
No. 74 624/A-B-C August 26, 1964, Tel Aviv, 20.50 h

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.
161
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.
162
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 GEAMĂNU,
SECRETARY OF THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,
THE STATE OF ISRAEL IN BUCHAREST, REGARDING THE ISSUE 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).
163
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
REGARDING THE PLANNED VISIT OF THE TEL AVIV MAYOR IN 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).
164
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.
99
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER,
PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, WITH
ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
REGARDING THE ISSUE OF THE JEWISH EMIGRATION FROM ROMANIA
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.
165
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.
166
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
167
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).
168
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.
169
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
170
103
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU1),

IN TEL AVIV, WITH ZVI AYALON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
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).
171
104
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
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
MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO CORNELIU MĂNESCU,
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, ON
THE STATE OF ROMANIAN-ISRAELI RELATIONSHIPS

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
172
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.
173
106
THE CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT ZALMAN SHAZAR AND
THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL

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).
174
107
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU,

DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
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.
175
108
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF VALERIU GEORGESCU,
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

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.
176
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.
177
109
THE TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING
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).
178
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,
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,
179
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

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
180
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.
181
112
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CHIVU STOICA, PRESIDENT OF
THE STATE COUNCIL OF ROMANIA, WITH ZVI AYALON,
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
182
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
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).
183
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 TEKOAH1), 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).
184
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.
185
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
CORNELIU MĂNESCU, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
REGARDING THE ISRAELI REQUEST FOR CONVERSATIONS WITH 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.
186
116
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF DIONISIE IONESCU,
DIRECTOR OF PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MFA 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
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, IIIrd 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.
187
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).
188
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 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
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
189
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.
190
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, DIRECTOR OF
PROTOCOL WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
WITH MORDECHAI AVGAR, CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF
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.
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.
191
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

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO THE MINISTRY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING THE COLLABORATION 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.
192
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.
193
122
THE ISRAELI REACTIONS TO ESTABLISHING DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
BETWEEN ROMANIA AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC GERMANY1)

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.
194
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
The heads of missions of the socialist countries manifested no interest in the respective
event.
(Ss) V. Georgescu
123
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

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.
195
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

MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO ILIE VERDEŢ,
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA,
REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI NEGOTIATIONS
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).
196
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
THE DRAFT OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI ECONOMIC AGREEMENT
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.
197
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
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.
198
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.
199
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.
AMFA, founds Israel. Problem 20 E/1967, f. 85-89.
200
127
REGARDING THE VISIT OF THE ISRAELI DELEGATION TO BUCHAREST
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.
201
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 AFFAIRS 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.
202
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).
203
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.
204
129
MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU,
INCREASING TENSIONS IN ISRAELI-ARAB RELATIONS
No. 85 154 May 24, 1967, Tel Aviv, 01.40 h.

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.
205
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
THE ESCALATION OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN INCIDENTS AND
MOBILIZATION OF BOTH ARMIES
No. 85 157 May, 25, 1967, Tel Aviv, 9.40 h

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.
206
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 JERUSALEM
DUE TO THE JORDANIAN-ISRAELI ARTILLERY SHOOTING
No. 85 178 June 6, 1967, Tel Aviv, 19.10 h

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.
207
132
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT
No. 85 179 June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv, 0.35 h

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
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.
208
133
THE STATUS OF THE ISRAELI-EGYPTIAN CONFLICT
No. 85 180 June 7, 1967, Tel Aviv, 19.10 h

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
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”.
209
134
PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
REGARDING THE ISRAELI POSITION TOWARDS THE PEACE AGREEMENTS
No. 85 185 June 12, 1967, Tel Aviv, 01.15 h

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.
210
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

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.
211
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
212
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
PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA
REGARDING THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT
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).
213
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.
214
139
MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU,
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).
215
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.
216
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.
(Ss) V. Georgescu
141
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING CERTAIN ISRAELI 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.
217
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
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, REGARDING
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.
218
• 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.
219
143
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
1)
See “Scânteia”, Year XXXV, no. 7413, July 26, 1967.
220
144
HIS MEETING WITH ABBA EBAN, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 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.
221
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 ARAB STATES

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
222
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 ISRAEL
IN THE ARAB STATES

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).
223
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 AFFAIRS OF
THE STATE OF ISRAEL, REGARDING THE POSITION OF ROMANIA 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).
224
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.
225
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.
226
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.
227
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,
228
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
229
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
PETRU BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF ROMANIA, ON THE ESCALATION OF VIOLENT PALESTINIAN 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
230
(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.
(Ss) V. Georgescu
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.
231
151
REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE ISRAELI POLITICAL GROUPS
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
232
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.
233
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
MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRE BURLACU,
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).
234
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 ILIE VERDEŢ,
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, ON
THE FIRST MEETING OF THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI JOINT COMMISSION
No. 85370 December 19, 1967, Tel Aviv, 12.00 a.m.

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.
235
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 COVERAGE 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.
236
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
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA REGARDING THE PROGRESS OF
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.
237
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 REGIONAL 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.
238
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.
239
158
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
No. 91 852 December 29, 1967, Vienna, 6.00 p.m.

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.
240
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 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 USSR’S POSITIONS IN
THE NEAR EAST CRISIS
No. 61 004 January 9, 1968, Helsinki, 8.00 p.m.

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).
241
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
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.
242
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 FOREIGN 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.
243
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.
244
162
TELEGRAM OF VALENTIN LIPATTI1), AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND
PLENIPOTENTIARY TO UNESCO, TO VASILE GLIGA,
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).
245
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
THE LATEST POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEAR EAST

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.
246
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).
247
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).
248
164
TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND
THE POLITICAL SOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT

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.
249
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.
250
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
251
167
THE ISRAELI REACTION TO
THE LATEST ACTIONS OF AL FATAH ORGANIZATION
No. 85 045 February 14, 1968, Tel Aviv, 2.00 p.m.

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
252
168
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALIŢA,
DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER
DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
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.
253
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 Maliţa 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.
__________________________
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.
254
169
PETRE BURLACU, DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF 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.
255
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
REACTIONS TO THE IMMINENT RESUMPTION OF
AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

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.
256
171
THE JARRING MISSION AND THE PERSPECTIVES TO SOLVE
THE NEAR EAST CRISIS

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.
257
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.
258
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.
259
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

PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER IN TEL AVIV, TO PETRU BURLACU,
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.
260
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.
261
174
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF MIRCEA MALIŢA, 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 NEAR EAST

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.
262
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
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

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.
263
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 OF ROMANIA
ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT

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).
264
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.].
265
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
HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE HEAD OF THE ISRAELI COMMUNIST PARTY
ON THE ISSUE OF SOLVING THE NEAR EAST CRISIS
No. 85 143 May 1, 1968, Tel Aviv, 20.00 h

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.
266
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 MACOVESCU1 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).
267
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
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 GOVERNMENT
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.
268
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.
269
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
270
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 AUTHORITIES
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.
Mircea Mironenco, attaché within Vth Department – Relations assisted.
271
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

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
272
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 INTERVENTION OF
THE WARSAW PACT IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA

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.
273
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.
274
183
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.
275
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.
276
184
MESSAGE OF ION GHEORGHE MAURER, PRESIDENT OF

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS 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 THE PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF THE ISRAELI-ARAB CONFLICT
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.
277
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.
278
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
279
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.
280
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
281
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.
282
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.
283
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
284
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
285
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
286
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.
287
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.
288
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.
289
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
FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON,
EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF
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.
290
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
291
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
292
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 FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND
PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF ROMANIA IN TEL AVIV, ON
THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ISRAELI MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

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.
293
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
DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
No. 71 081 March 5, l969, Tel Aviv, 19.00 h

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.
294
• 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.
295
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 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

OF ROMANIA, TO VALERIU GEORGESCU, EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND
PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER IN TEL AVIV,
ON INCREASING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION

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.
296
191

DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
ON THE DATE OF RAISING LEVEL OF THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
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.
297
192

ELIEZER DORON, ENVOY EXTRAORDINARY AND
REGARDING THE POSITIONS OF THE TWO COUNTRIES CONCERNING
THE DATE FOR INCREASING LEVEL OF
THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASSY

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
298
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:
299
“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, PRESIDENT OF
THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF ROMANIA, WITH ELIEZER DORON,
EXTRAORDINARY ENVOY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY MINISTER OF
THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION IN ROMANIA

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.
300
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
301
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.
302
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
303
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

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
304
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
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
305
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 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
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).
306
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 LEGATION IN
TEL AVIV REGARDING THE DATE FOR
RAISING THE LEVEL OF DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION

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.
307
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.
308
198
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 INCREASING OF
THE DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION TO THE RANK OF EMBASSY

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.
309
199
TELEGRAM OF VALERIU GEORGESCU,

EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR IN TEL AVIV, TO
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
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:
310
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.
311
201
TELEGRAM OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF ROMANIA TO THE U.N. TO

MIRCEA MALIŢA, 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
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.
1
See footnote 1 to doc. no. 195.
312
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
FIRST DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ROMANIA,
WITH RAFAEL BENSHALOM,
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR OF
THE CEREMONY FOR PRESENTING THE LETTERS OF CREDENCE

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
313
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.
314
203
TELEGRAM OF NICOLAE BLEJAN,

EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR IN SOFIA, TO
THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF S ROMANIA REGARDING
CERTAIN FOREIGN COMMENTS TO THE ACTION OF
RAISING THE ROMANIAN-ISRAELI DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION
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”.
315
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.
316
204
CONVERSATION TRANSCRIPT OF CORNELIU MANESCU, MINISTER OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF S.R. OF ROMANIA, WITH RAFAEL BENSHALOM,
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY AMBASSADOR OF
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
317
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.
318
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”.
319
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.
320
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
321
322
INDEX*
Aaron, Ifrat: 141 Bârlădeanu, Alexandru: 28

Abramov, Alexander N.: 53, 63, 64, 68 Begin, Menachem: 15, 142, 145, 151
Abramov, deputy (MP): 93 Bejarano [?]: 5
Abdalah Ibn Hussein: 15 Beker, Aharon.: 141
Adenauer, Konrad: 78 Ben Aaron (Aharon), Yitzhak: 68, 70
Agami (Auerbach), Moshe: 11, 12, 14, 36 Ben Gurion, David: 5, 6, 8-11, 14-17, 22, 27, 29, 31,
Alexandrowicz [?]: 2 37, 46, 48, 62, 66-68, 70, 71, 76-79, 84, 136, 138, 145
Aline: 142 Ben-Zvi, Yitzhak: 46, 65, 78, [112, 115bu]; Madam
Allon, Yigal: 66, 134, 136, 145, 150, 151, 183 ~: 48, 65
Amer, Mohammad Abdel-Hakim: 78 Bendor, Samuel (Shmuel): 76, 77
Anders, Wladysław: 29 Benshalom, Rafael: 202, 204
Andrei, Mircea: 204 Bentov, Mordechai: 54, 134
Aranne, Zalman: 120 Bernadotte, Folke, count: 4
Arafat, Yasser: 129 Bernstein, Peretz: 37, 46
Aref, Abd al-Salam Muhammad: 177 Blaustein, Jacob (Yaakov): 26, 31
Argaman, Zeev: 51, 52, 58 Blejan, Nicolae: 203
Argov (Grabovsky), Meir: 37 Bodrov, Mikhail F.: 70
Aron, Z.: 46 Brandt, Willy: 128
Aronovitz (Aranne), Zalman: 31 Brătianu, Constantin I.C.: 5
Artzi, Yitzhak: 71 Brezhnev, Leonid Ilyich: 159
Avgar, Mordechai: 116, 119 Brucan, Silviu: 62
Avida, Mordechai: 100, 159, 162 Bulganin, Nikolai Al.: 68
Avidan (Walter), Moshe: 5, 6, 9, 39, 86, 91, 92, 95 Bull, Odd, general: 129
Avner, Gershon (Hirsh): 169 Bunaciu, Avram: 82
Avneri, Uri: 79 Bunche, Ralph Johnson: 157, 168
Avriel, Ehud (Yehouda): 24, 26, 29, 58 Burlacu, Petru: 129, 134, 137-139, 143, 145, 146,
Ayalon, Zvi (Tsvi): 94, 97-99, 103, 107, 110-112, 150, 151, 153, 157, 172, 173, 177, 182, 183, 186,
114 188-191, 195, 196, 198-200
B C
Baldocci, G.: 203 Carmel, Yossi: 65

Ball, Francisca Fernandez: 142 Carmel, Moshe: 134, 136, 142
Bar-Yehouda, Yisrael: 79 Ceauşescu, Nicolae: [126], 139, 147, 163, 181, 185-
Bartur, Moshe: 51, 54 187, 194, 201-203
Baruch, Niv: 38, 39 Celac, Sergiu: 111, 196
Baruch, R.: 51 Chelouche, Aviezer: 51, 108, 126, 128, 137, 156, 186
Bar-Zakai (Bardaki), Dr. Natan: 65; Mrs. ~: 65 Chervenkov, Vilko V.: 35
Barzilai, Yisrael: 69, 152, 160, 185 Chitic, Gheorghe: 55, 56
Bastide [F?]: 203 Chivu, Stoica: 67, 76, 77, [106], 112
Bălaj, Teofil: 165 Chuvakhin, Dmitri St.: [133], 139
Bălan, Ştefan: 120 Cioară, Gheorghe: 153-155, 186
Bărbulescu, O.: 126 Cioroiu, Nicolae: 6-18, 20, 21, 23, 29
__________________________________
* The figure indicates the document’s number.
323
Cleja, Ştefan: 126 Eshkol, Levy: 73, 78, 91, 93, 96, 98, 105, 109, 129,
Cogan, N.: 52 132, 135, 136, [143], 145, 146, 149, 151, 152, 154,
Cohen, Jean: 61, 62 155, 157, 162, 167, 172, 175, 179, 183, 184, 186
Cohen, Idov: 30, 42, 47 Eytan, Walter: 22, 24, 25, 29, 65, [192]
Cohn, Aron: 31
Comay, Michael S.: 78 F
Corbeanu, Mircea: 119
Covaci, Ion: 79, 90, 93 Fawzi, Mahmud: 74
Curavale, Dumitru: 148, 186, 192, 194 Feldman, Meir (Myer): 93
Filderman, Dr. Wilhelm: 36, 62
D Florea, Lucian, archimandrite: 131
Floroiu, Ion: 202
Dagan, Avigdor: 190, 191, 195 Foca, Hirsch: 61
Dak, Moshe: 181 Frankel, Yitzhak: 23
Davidovici, Paul: 5-7, 12, 15, 21-25, 27-33, 35-37 Frânţescu, Caius: 57-60
Davis, Dr. John H.: 78 Friedman, see Eliasiv
Dayan, Moshe: 68, 78, 79, 93, 96, 136, 145, 146, Fulbright, William J.: 78
150-152, 167, 171
Dăianu, Ionel: 38 G
Dedulia, Ivan: 95
De Gaulle, Charles: 109, 130, 177, 186 Gajda, A.: 203
Derech [?]: 70 Galili, Yisrael: 123, 128
Dianu, Barbu: 5-7, 22, 23, 26, 29 Gall, M.: 52
Diaconescu, Gheorghe: 201 Ganea, I.: 80
Dillon, Douglas D.: 78 Gaulan, Y.: 105
Dimitrov, Georgi M.: 5 Geamănu, Grigore: 97
Diţulescu, T.: 81 Georgescu, Ion: 83
Dori, Jacob (Ya’acov): 5 Georgescu, Valeriu: 103-106, 108, 109, 113, 114,
Doron, Eliezer: 96, 104, 105, 109, 115, 116, 118, 117, 118, 120-125, 127-141, 143-148, 150, 151, 153-
119, 121, 126, 163, 168, 174, [176], 180, 184, 186- 157, 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 169-173, 175, 177, 183,
189, 192-195 185, 186, 188-192, 194, 195, 198-200
Douek [?]: 165
Gheorghiu-Dej, Gheorghe: 42, 62, 97, 98
Dov Tamari: 56
Ghersin, family: 47
Dov Satat: 90
Gideon, Z.: 5, 6, 9
Dragoş, Gheorghe: 116
Giosan, Nicolae: 186, 192
Drugman, I.: 139
Gliga, Vasile: 162, 193
Dubček, Alexander: 181
Goebbels, Joseph Paul: 140
Dumitrăchescu, Constantin: 182, 183
Goldberg, Arthur: 144,147
Dumitrescu, Vasile: 75, 82
Goldman, Dr. Nahum: 33, 62, 71, 78
E Goldstücker, Edvart: 22, 29
Gomułka, Wladysław: 15, 140
Eban, Abba: 78, 93, 104-106, 109, 114-116, 118, Gordon, Jon: 28, 51
123, 126, 128, 130, 132, 136, 143-147, 151, 152, 154, Goulan, Y.: 105, 200
157, 163, 164, 168, 169, 171, [176], 179, 183, [184], Gromyko, Andrei A.: 14, 96, 144, 147
185, 187-192, 194, 199, 200, 202, 204 Groza, Dr. Petru: 35, 57
Eichmann, Adolf: 77, 78 Gruenwald [?]: 22
Eisenhower, Dwight David: 78; doctrine ~: 66 Guiney, D’Alen [?]: 167
Eisenstadt [?]: 23 Guyon, Edouard-Félix: 5, 29; Madame ~: 29
Eshel, Arie: 55, 65
Elian, Arieh: 118 H
Eliasiv (Eliashiv), Dr. Shmuel: 5, 11, 14, 16, 19, 22,
24, 26, 29 Hacoen (Hakohen), David: 152, 156, 171
Eminescu, Mihai: 22, 23 Hadow, Michael R.: 170
Enache, Ion: 110 Hajeck, Jiři: 181
Eshel, Aryeh: 55, 56, 65 Halevi, Eliezer: 12, 27
324
Hallstein, Walter: 122; doctrine ~: 122 Klaus, Dr. Josef: 158, 202
Hamad, Muhammad Fahmy: 176 Kohavi-Stern, Samy I.: 36, 45, 56
Hammarskjöld, Dag: 78, 129 Kohen, see Cohen
Hapoel Hamizrachi, Rafael: 45 Kohn: 22
Harell, Arieh: 57, 58, 60, 67, 73; Mrs. ~: 59 Kol, Moshe: 113
Harriman, Averell W.: 70 Korn, Yitzhak: 65, 72; Mrs. ~: 65
Hazan, Yaakov: 141 Korn, Z.: 61
Heimsohn, Leon: 31 Kostov, Traicho: 15
Helm, Knox: 5 Kosygin, Alexander N.: 140, 159
Hendel: 141 Kun Béla: 15
Henin, Sasha David: 149
Hertzel, Theodor: 77 L
Hitler, Adolf: 66, 85
Holm [?]: 5 Laor, Daniel: 51
Horn, General Carl Carlsson von ~: 84 Lavon, Pinhas: 46, 78, 79
Horovitz, Moses: 101 Lavretki [?]: 15
Horowitz, David: 92 Lenin, Vladimir I.: 15
Hussein I, Ibn Talal: 163, 166, 187 Levavi, Arieh (Leibmann): 29, 30, 92, 104
Huţanu, Virgil E.: 41-47, 51 Levin, Misha: 31
Levontino [?]: 43
I Lieberman [?]: 29
Limon, general: 142
Iachil, see Yahil Lindsay, John: 78
Ilan, Arie: 129 Lipatti, Valentin: 162
Ilya, archimandrite: 29 Livni: 37
Ion, Petre: 51 Loç [?]: 5, 29
Ionescu, Dionisie: 94, 107, 116, 119 Loker, Zvi: 30
Ionescu, Neagu: 115, 139, 142, 143, 147, 149, 152, Lumumba, Patrice: 78
178, 181 Lustig [?]: 5
Istinely [?]: 53 Lutz, Kadish: 136, 154
Iuda: 64
M
J
MacMillan, Harold M.: 78
Jarring, Gunnar: 152, 157, 160-165, 167-174, 179, Macovei, Pompiliu: 22, 98, 186
183, 184, 186, 187, 193, 195 Macovescu, George: 13, 22, 83, 178-180, 185, 186,
Jianu, Tudor: 165, 202 189, 192-194, 197, 202
Johnson, Lyndon B.: 93, 130, 151, 162, 168 Mahgal: 201
Johnston, Eric J.: 91 Maliţa, Mircea: 87, 152, 163, 168, 174, 201
Joseftal, Dr. Giora (Georg): 78 Maniu, Iuliu: 5, 62
Jurza, Milan: 95 Manu, Petru: 61-66, 68-73, 75, 76, 78, 105
Justinian Marina, Patriarch: 81 Mao Zedong: 95
Marmor [?]: 181
K Margalit, Elkana: 57, 59, 60
Markti [?]: 5
Kadar, Lau: 63 Maurer, Ion Gheorghe: 98, 99, 128, 141, 143, 144,
Kamin, Baruch: 47 147, 155, 176, 179, 184, 186, 192-194
Kaplan, H.: 51, 54 Măgura [?]: 52
Kaplan, Dr. L., Mrs. ~: 73 Mănescu, Corneliu: 80, 94, 96, 98, 105, 106, 111,
Kargman, Yisrael: 156 115, 116, 118, 122, 126, 128, 143, 144, 147, 152, 163,
Karmi, Menachem: 196, 198, 202 172, 180, 183, 186-189, 197, 204
Kasavubu, Joseph: 79 McDonald, James G.: 5, 22, 29
Kayemeth Lelsrael, Karen: 36 Meir (Meyersohn), Golda: 5, 22, 55, 61, 66, 69, 73,
Keysari, G.: 155 75, 77, 78, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 109, 136,148
Kennedy, John F.: 78, 93 Mezincescu, Eduard: 89, 98, 104, 109, 110, 113
Khrushchev, Nikita S.: 70, 78, 95 Micu, Nicolae: 89
325
Mikunis, Samuel (Shmuel): 15, 22, 46, 95, 127, 139, Purcaru, Augustin: 118
145, 149, 177 Pushkin, Alexander S.: 5
Miljovski, K.: 203
Minchev, N.: 203 R
Mironenco, Mircea: 168, 174, 180
Mizrachi, Leon: 30, 31, 36 Rabin, Yitzhak: 136
Mobutu, Joseph Desire: 79 Rabinovich, M.: 68, 70
Morgenthau Jr., Henry: 29, 31 Radai [Berman]: 5
Moris, Jacob [Yaakov]: 181 Rafael (Raphael), Gideon: 171, 173, 185-187, 189,
Mukhin, Mikhail L.: 5, 6, 22 192-194, 196, 202
Rafael (Raphael), Yitzhak: 37
N Ralea, Mihail: 76
Rangheţ, Boris: 97
Namir, Mordechai: 2, 11, 14, 98 Rapacki, Adam: 88 (Rapacki Plan), 96, 109
Napoleon I: 46 Răducanu, Graziella: 107
Nasser, Gamal Abdel: 66, 70, 74, 78, 117, 129, 139, Rădulescu, (Gheorghe) Gogu: 82
146-148, 152, 158, 161, 170, 174, 179, 183, 186, 187, Răuţă, V.: 126, 128
204 Remetz, Moshe David: 14
Nedelcu, Gheorghe: 100 Reza Pahlavi Mohammad, shah: 78
Nedivi, U.: 51 Riftin, Jacob (Yaakov): 15
Neghuj-Schwartz, Eleonora: 101 Rockefeller, Nelson A.: 71
Nissim, Isaac: 63, [64] Rojinsky [?]: 29
Nixon, Richard M.: 78, 141, 197, 203 Roosevelt, Franklin Delano: 29
Nkrumah, Kwame: 79 Rosen, Dr. Moses: [60], 63, 85, 164
Rubin, Reuven: 3, 9-12, 14, 18, 26, 40
O
Rudenco, Teodor: 60
Olshan, Yitzhak: 64
S
P
Sahar, Yehezkel: 5
Salmon, Katriel: 80-82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94
Paasio, Rafael: [130]
Sanon, Y.: 166
Palmor, Eliezer: 143, 147
Sapir, Pinhas: 78, 124, 126-128, 136, 141, 145, 151
Pandermalis, Pavlos: 69
Saraga, Fred: 36
Parhon, Constantin I.: 3, 6, 19, 26, 60, 65
Sasson, Eliyahu (Elian): 150
Pat, Jacob (Yaakov): 27
Schein [?]: 40
Pauker, Ana: 1-7, 10, 11, 13-16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26,
Schmidt, Schmarije: 101
29, 31-33, 36, 37, 40
Sellinger, Abraham: 77, 78
Pauls, Dr. Rolf Friedemann: 142
Pavel, Dan: 52 Şerban, N.: 80
Pedatzur, David: 142 Sergeev, Nikolai P.: 5
Peinsipp, Dr. Walter: 142 Sfătcău, Ion: 166
Pele, Gheorghe: 158, 161 Sfetea, I.: 198
Peres, Simon (Shimon): 78, 79, 136, 142 Shafran (Şafran), Alexandru: 36
Peretz, see Peres Shapira, Yaakov-Shimshon: 160
Petrescu: 73 Sharef (Sherf), Zeev: 22, 153, 155, 156, 160
Petri, Mihai: 51, 52 Sharett (Shertok), Moshe: 1-6, 9-12, 14, 16, 31, 32,
Piłsudski, Josef: 46 35, 42, 46-51, 54, 56, 78
Pilu, Gheorghe: 51, 57, 59, 60 Shavy, Ehuda (Yehouda): 135, 156
Plătăreanu, M.: 187, 193 Shazar (Rubashov), Zalman: 106, 115, 198, 200
Popescu, Dumitru: 84-86, 88, 91, 92, 96, 98, 100- Shelepin, Alexander N.: 159
102, 105, 108, 109, 113 Shek, Zeev: 142, 158, 161
Popescu, Marcel: 52 Shertok, see Sharett
Prafai, Michael: 181 Shneerson, M.: 121
Preoteasa, Grigore: 16, 38, 57 Shukairi (Sukeiri), Ahmed: 78, 123
Pricop, Ioari: 49-51, 53 Siebelman (Rabbi): 62
326
Simedrea, Titus: [77] Verdeţ, Ilie: 124, 154
Simionescu, Cristofor: 56 Vicol, Vasile: 51
Simon, Dr. Michael: 5, 6, 22 Vilner, see Wilner
Siroski: 181 Virgin, J.: 51
Slociver, Samuel: 101 Vîşinschi, Vladimir: 82, 87, 98, 99, 103, 112,126
Sneh (Sne), Moshe: 19, 36, 139, 149, 177 Vyshinsky, Andrei J.: 15, 96
Snowman, Edward: 95 Voicu, Ion (violin player): 121
Soken, Y.: 142 Voicu, Ion: 204
Sprinzak, Yosef: 6, 22, 48 Voss [?]: 29
Stalin, J.V.: 95 Vremeş, M.: 108
Stănescu, Constantin I.: 39
Stănescu, Ion: 79
Stern, Avraham (Stern Group): 79
Stevenson, Adlai E.: 78 W
Sardi [Szardi?], A.: 203
Walter, see Avidan Moshe
T Warhaftig, Dr. Zerach, Rabbi: 160
Weiss, Elisabeta: 77
Talbot, Phillips: 93 Weizmann, Chaim: 5, 6, 29, 36, 40, 71
Tamari, Dr. Dov: 56 Weizmann, Madam ~: 40
Tee, Mark: 29 Wilner (Vilner), Meir: 15, 19, 22, 47, 127, 145, 149
Tekoah, Yosef: 114, 128, 169 Wilson, Harold: 130
Tenenbaum, Bernard: 78 Wingate [?]: 68
Tito, Josip Broz: 15, 146, 158, 161, 183, 186 Warhaftig, Zerach: 160
Titus (Emperor): 63
Tocaci [?]: 45 Y
Toma, Ana: 10, 24-27, 32, 34
Truman, Harry S.: 31, 37 Yaari, Meir: 79
Tsarapkin, Semion K.: 15 Yahil, Chaim (Haim): 84
Tubi, Tewfik: 19, 149 Yegor, Moshe: 76
Tukan: 204 Yershov (Ershov), Pavel Iv.: 5, 22, 29; Mrs.
Turin, E.: 203 Yershova [?]: 29
Youlou, Fulbert: 78
U
Z
Upadhia: 201
U Thant: 87, 115, 123, 129, 152, 157, 161, 162, 169, Zuaiyin (Zaien), Yusuf (Youssef): 117
171, 172, 180 Zavu, Costache: 94
Zerubavel, Yaakov: 5
V Zeiger (Zeigher) [?]: 62
Zenguliev [?]: 53
Vancea, Nicolae: 159 Zissu [?]: 40
Vacasov, Yamay: 51 Zurlov, Ivan: 203
327
328
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.
329
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 […].
330
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.
331
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.
332
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.
333
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,
334
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.

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)
335
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.

President of the State of Israel, Zalman Shazar, receiving the letters of credence of
Valeriu Georgescu, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania.
336
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).
337
338

Israel Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Israel Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ROMANIA-ISRAEL

65 YEARS OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

Series BILATERAL RELATIONS

Series DUMITRU PREDA

Volume VICTOR BOŞTINARU

Authors DANIELA BLEOANCĂ

Collaborators TEODOR GHEORGHE

This book is the English edition of the volume Romania-Israel.

CIP description of the National Library

Romania-Israel. Diplomatic relations, vol. I 1948-1969, Bucharest, Bruxelles, 2013.

• Foreword (Victor Boştinaru) VII

ON THE ISRAELIAN-ROMANIAN RELATIONS:

(Speech delivered at the official ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary to

II. The influence of the “Cold War”, 1948-1958

III. From dialogue to cooperation, 1959-1969

Year 1966 1967 1968 1969

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

Dumitru Preda Cristina Păiuşan

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

June [11], 1948, Bucharest

J’ai l’honneur d’accuser la réception du télégramme du 9 juin [1948] [Annexe 1] par

Au nom du gouvernement provisoire israélien.

(Ss) Moshe Shertok, ministre des Affaires étrangères”.

TELEGRAM SENT BY ANA PAUKER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF

No. 35 711 July 3, 1948, Bucharest

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

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

No. 62 051 November 13, 1948, Bucharest

J’ai l’honneur de porter a votre connaissance que le Président du Présidium de la Grande

AMFA founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1948, f. 247.

No. 4155 -A March 11, 1949, Hakirya

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

No 94 August 28, 1949, Tel Aviv

(Ss) Paul Davidovici7)

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

No. 165 A September 26, 1949, Tel Aviv

I have the honour to report the following:

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

(Ss) Nicolae Cioroiu

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

No. 165 B September 28, 1949, Tel Aviv

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

(Ss) Nicolae Cioroiu

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

No. 162 October 14, 1949, Tel Aviv, 17.45 h

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 65.

October 19, 1949, Tel Aviv

Sharett spoke again and concluded the discussion as follows:

The opinion of our Legation:

No. 4 189 November 5, 1949, Bucharest, 21.00 h

(Ss) Ana Toma2)

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

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

AMFA, founds Telegrams. Tel Aviv, 1949, f. 130.

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

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

No. 345 November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv

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

No. 347 November 30, 1949, Tel Aviv

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

No. 361 December 8, 1949, Tel Aviv

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