Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

683.84A/11–2053

No. 734
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Palestine-Israel-Jordan Affairs (Waller)¹

confidential

[Washington,] November 20, 1953.

Subject:

I.

Israel-Syrian Relations—Demilitarized Zone—Water Development.

II.

Israel-Jordan Relation—Security Council Draft Resolution on Qibya.

Participants:

• Ambassador Eban of Israel
• Minister Shiloah, Israel Embassy
• NEA—Mr. Byroade
• UNP-Mr. Ludlow
• NE-Mr. Waller

I. Ambassador Eban opened the conversation by saying that his first topic was water. During the five years he has represented his government in the United Nations he has never known the balance of an argument to be so much in one direction, since there appears to be very little support for the Syrian complaint regarding Israel’s Jordan River diversion project in the Demilitarized Zone.

He said that Israel does not doubt the authority of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to make decisions regarding development in the Demilitarized Zone and to obtain adequate guarantees. All water schemes for Palestine have concluded that without complete control of the Jordan River water there could be no existence for Palestine, a large part of which is now Israel. He recalled that the British refused to accept the mandate for Palestine until full control of the waters was assured. This was accomplished by the Anglo-French agreement of 1922, which Syria has now discovered and seems to advocate, particularly with respect to water rights. He said the Israel Government’s position is quite clear, namely, that there shall be no Syrian control of Jordan River waters. He said that the Chief of Staff has full authority to undertake all arrangements for development in the Demilitarized Zone and Israel is willing to embody its guarantees in a legal instrument which Syria could invoke in case of violation.

Mr. Byroade asked for clarification of what he understood was the Israel position that the Jordan River belongs to Israel to do with as it wishes. The Ambassador replied that the Jordan River does not at any place touch Syrian territory. Mr. Byroade then started to ask a question about Israel exerting sovereignty over the Demilitarized Zone but the Ambassador interrupted to say that Israel does not claim sovereignty over the Demilitarized Zone, although he, Eban, perhaps, unwisely, so claimed in the Huleh dispute before the Security Council in 1951. Israel has, however, insisted on the absence of Syrian sovereignty. He felt that as long as the Demilitarized Zone exists there can be no question of sovereignty. This is the position taken by Dr. Ralph Bunche.

Mr. Byroade asked about Syrian Ambassador Zeineddine’s belief that the construction of the canal would change the character of the Demilitarized Zone. Ambassador Eban said there was no basis for the Syrian contention and in any event the Armistice Agreement provides for the development of the Demilitarized Zone as does the Security Council resolution on the Huleh. It is correct, however, the Ambassador said, that no development can legally take place in the Demilitarized Zone that would violate the rights of residents of the Zone. He recalled statements of Dr. Ralph Bunche to the effect that the Demilitarized Zone was established as a legal concept without reference to topography. Its purpose was to keep the troops apart and, in fact, Dr. Bunche was able to obtain the withdrawal of Syrian troops to the old Palestine boundary. Mr. Shiloah, who participated in the negotiation of the Armistice Agreement, said that Israel would never have signed an Armistice Agreement which would have interfered with the development of the Zone.

Ambassador Eban said that the question of military advantage to Israel by the construction work would be laughed out of court because the Jordan River is so narrow in most places that anyone could jump across it. Further, the Unified Development Plan which was the subject of Mr. Eric Johnston’s recent visit to the area would make more changes in the Demilitarized Zone than anything Israel contemplates doing.

Mr. Byroade asked whether the Ambassador believed Israel has the right to take all the water of the Jordan and move it to the coastal plain. The Ambassador replied that the question is important but not relevant to the present case. He said that legally Israel would probably have the right to use the water on the coastal plain but politically and morally there would be some question about it. The question would be whether states down the river would suffer by such action. A solution would be to use Lake Tiberias as a reservoir for regional use. Mr. Byroade referred to a pamphlet which he understood had been put out in Jerusalem a week or so ago advocating unilateral use of the Jordan River by Israel. He asked whether Israel’s unilateral use of the Jordan River would justify the Kingdom of Jordan using the Yarmuk River on the same basis. The Ambassador replied in the negative because, he explained, Israel borders the Yarmuk and therefore has rights thereto. In the Demilitarized Zone safeguards can be set up by the Chief of Staff to protect Arab landowners and their water rights.

Mr. Byroade asked whether, in the event General Bennike should not be satisfied with Israel’s action regarding the diversion project, Israel would return to the procedures provided by the Armistice Agreement. Mr. Shiloah answered by saying that Israel’s action would depend upon the nature of General Bennike’s decision. If General Bennike should say that Israel is violating the Armistice Agreement Israel would probably appeal to the Security Council but if General Bennike shows a disposition to work out an arrangement for the improvement of the area, Israel will go along. Israel has never given any indication of approval of the idea of limiting the development of the Demilitarized Zone and would not have signed any agreement containing such a provision. Agreements for development of the Zone can only be between the concessionnaires and the Chief of Staff, acting as Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission. Mr. Ludlow pointed out that the Israel Government has questioned General Bennike’s authority. Ambassador Eban denied this, stating that Israel has questioned the substance of General Bennike’s decision. The Israel Government maintains that General Bennike cannot set himself up as a dictator of the Demilitarized Zone and Israel will always object if he goes beyond his authority. Mr. Byroade said that our understanding of the procedure for considering disputes pertaining to the Demilitarized Zone was that matters go to the Chief of Staff, then to the MAC, and then to the Security Council. The Ambassador replied that the Chief of Staff has two duties, one is to be Chairman of the MAC and the other, under Article V, is to look after the interests of local civilians in the Demilitarized Zone (not act as an arbitrator between Israel and Syria). He said that Israel challenged Bennike’s authority only when he said that Damascus must agree to projects in the Demilitarized Zone. Israel has never questioned General Bennike’s authority in connection with alleged denial or infringement of Arab rights in the Zone.

The Ambassador expressed the hope that there could be consultation between Israel and the United States on the draft resolution on Banat Ya’qub. Mr. Byroade said that drafting negotiations could best be held in New York where we are presently working out details for a resolution with the U.K. and French delegations. Ambassador Eban expressed surprised interest that we were working with these two delegations on the resolution.

The Ambassador said the two principles by which Israel is guided in Jordan River water development are that the Security Council should at the present time reaffirm its decision made in 1951 which denied Syria the right of veto and that the Jordan River is completely non-Syrian.

Mr. Byroade said we do not wish to put anything in the resolution giving Syria the right of veto but we do want to make sure that the armistice machinery does not break down. The Ambassador said that a wording along the lines of Mr. Byroade’s statement would not be against Israel’s interests. All Israel is looking for is an opportunity to work out matters with General Bennike. He then suggested that Israel’s legal experts on water development get together with the Department’s legal experts. Mr. Byroade showed interest in the idea but did not give a definite answer.

Mr. Shiloah understood there was apprehension in some quarters that the canal project would interfere with regional water plans. He said that the canal project would not for the next two or three years interfere with any regional plans so that everyone interested has at least that much time to work out such plans. If an agreement cannot be reached on a regional development plan within that time, Israel must proceed with its own plans. He reiterated that Israel agrees to the principle of regional development but that there can be no such development if Syria has a veto. Mr. Byroade said he hoped that a development plan could be worked out in the field that will not be in violation of the Armistice Agreement. In the meantime, he asked, will Israel continue digging the canal in Israel territory? Ambassador Eban said that in the Demilitarized Zone Israel is observing its obligations but in Israel territory it will continue the project. There is no reason why Israel should stop working in its own territory. He thought there should be no difficulty about this but said that psychologically a great deal depends on the mood of General Bennike when he returns to the field. An attitude of conflict would not be helpful. He found Mr. Byroade’s suggestion good that Israel should avoid a “demonstrative show of machines” and would pass the suggestion along to his government.

The Ambassador said he was seeking an interview with Mr. Eric Johnston for later in the week with the intention of presenting him with a technical analysis of the Unified Development Plan as prepared by three American experts (Hays, Savage, Goldman?). He will make copies available to the Department after he sees Mr. Johnston.

II. The Ambassador referred to the present draft resolution pertaining to Israel-Jordan relations, including the Qibya incident, and said his government believes that the resolution as presently drafted will make peace impossible for a long time to come. He said the use of the words “strong censure” was without precedent in UN history even in events of far greater severity. He believed the sponsors of the resolution have lost their sense of proportion. He also objected to the “lightness and gentility” with which Jordan’s incursions into Israel are treated in the draft resolution. He said the language virtually approves Jordan’s failure to control its border and does not provide any warning note from the Jordanian point of view. Mr. Byroade called attention to the fact that the only operative provision of the resolution is to call on General Bennike to report to the Security Council again within 90 days. This can only apply to Jordan since the Qibya incident is behind. This 90 day period should serve both parties as a time within which to demonstrate their desires to settle some of their differences. Mr. Shiloah saw no basis for such an idea. The Ambassador continued by saying that General Bennike’s report calls attention to the fact that Jordan’s lack of control over its own nationals is the real cause of the trouble and yet the draft resolution ignores this. Next, the Israel Government believes it is shortsighted to omit any reference to the pursuit of peace by the two parties. This omission is particularly important because the Arabs are beginning to adopt the concept of a negotiated peace and the absence of some reference to peace would be a real set back. The Ambassador noted that Jordan had rejected Israel’s suggestion of high level talks in New York and said that so far as Israel is concerned it is quite prepared to hold such talks anywhere, perhaps Jerusalem as Dr. Haikal had suggested. Both Ambassador Eban and Mr. Shiloah expressed fervent hopes that in our speech before the Security Council we would vote favorably and endorse Israel’s proposal. Lastly, if the draft resolution is passed Israel must call attention to the fact that the Security Council has done nothing regarding the security problem and must then decide whether to endeavor to keep the Council in session or come to the Council again later regarding the general security of the area.

Mr. Byroade said we have been attempting to do for the area what we believe is right. We are not against peace and he doubted whether the Arabs would be able to read anything to the contrary in our actions. He hoped the Israel Government would act in a way that it believes best for the area in the long run rather than for some temporary gain. We have already done a great deal with the Arab states and we plan to talk very seriously with the Jordan Government. He believed that General Bennike’s report, 90 days hence, could show considerable improvement in the situation.

In reply to Ambassador Eban’s direct question as to the U.S. attitude regarding direct Israel-Jordan negotiations, Mr. Byroade replied that we are for talks in the area when we think there is some chance of success. We think that an approach through General Bennike or through the Mixed Armistice Commission at present offers the best chance of success.

1. Drafted also by Ludlow.