683.84A/5–1751: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (Davis) to the Department of State 1
niact
765. Be Deptel 513, May 14.2 Due my temporary indisposition, Eytan, Dir Gen FonOff called in Keeler this morning and in presence Bendor conveyed on behalf FonMin Sharett, then presiding over Cabinet meeting Jerusalem, Israels reaction to SC res tabled last night. Requested these reactions be conveyed to Dept before vote tomorrow.
It wld be “less than truth”, Eytan asserted, to fail to indicate that Israel “extremely upset” by terms of resolution, which he characterized as “not fair” and as one which Israel convinced “will not achieve purpose for which intended”.
[Page 687]When both sides accepted SC cease-fire last week and normal activities in area were resumed, Israel assumed that SC had finished with matter, and that Gen Riley hastening back to settle outstanding issues. Israel suddenly discovered that SC, “under circumstances which to us mysterious”, was unexpectedly convened again, with “certain amount of furtiveness” to discuss this resolution. Inasmuch as Israel del and other dels were confronted with document they never seen before, only natural that voting on resolution postponed.
After explaining that he wld not give a detailed analysis, but wld concentrate on 32 points to which Israel took greatest exception, he gave fol analysis of Israel attitude on these points, which set forth in numbered paras 3 and 10 of resolution in reftel. Particularly stress point (1) below.
1. Numbered para 3 reftel. Cessation Huleh work touches Israel population, which has mystic as well as practical approach to development and reconstruction, at most sensitive point.
To date, US has shown sympathetic understanding and given consistent finan and moral support for such projects, for which Israel appreciative. Decision stop work wld come as shock to population and wld have serious internal consequences. Particularly, concerned that US sponsorship and “I fear US initiative in putting this before SC”, will operate as gift to Mapamt just before elections, and consequences likely to be unfortunate for democratic cause.
2. Numbered para 10 reftel. Israel regards point calling for return Arabs to their homes as retrograde step from viewpoint peace in area. Recent fighting by Shamalna Arabs “armed, incited and assisted by Syrian Army personnel” is indication consequences returning Arabs to demil zone. Their presence represents danger not only to Israel security, but to peace in region.
In general, Eytan argued, resolution “unfortunate” in that it puts premium on aggression. Not only Syria, but other Arabs will deduce from resolution that they can halt development Israel by aggressive acts similar to most recent incidents and will be encouraged to try again at suitable opportunity.
After Eytan’s statement, Bendor added that not only Mapamt, but entire Israel population wld be affected by resolution which in it “careful understatement” (para 9 b reftel),3 failed to differentiate clearly between Syrian aggression and Israel’s “holding back when attacked”, for which, he added, Amb Davis had commended Israel. Resolution cld not have been much worse for Israel, he said, if in response last attack Israel Army had moved into demil zone, and hence raises questions about “rewards for virtue”.
My comment will follow.4
- Repeated for information to Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Jidda, London, and Paris.↩
- Same as telegram 926 to New York, p. 681.↩
- Identical to the subparagraph in the final text which begins: “Any aggressive military action …”. For text of May 18, see p. 693.↩
- See telegram 771 from Tel Aviv, May 18, p. 691.↩