210. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State1
1358. From Talbot. Following are key points my meeting with PriMin Eshkol April 22.
Noting FonMin Meir and I had already discussed Jordan waters issue (see following septel),2 Eshkol professed to be flabbergasted by USG characterization of UDP as “yardstick” by which water usage should be measured. He asked that we ensure King Hussein know if Jordan accepted water diverted from Lebanon or Syria, Israel would reopen whole question of Jordanian utilization of Yarmuk.
At Eshkol’s request I outlined my impressions of current situation in Arab Near East, particularly Nasser’s position. I said area trends during next six months should be watched closely to see whether Arab summit spirit would continue prevail or traditional inter-Arab rivalries again come to fore. I stressed persistence of apparently genuine Arab fear of geographic expansionism by Israel. PriMin strongly reiterated there no intention nor need for Israel’s territorial expansion.
Eshkol made usual plea, without specifying precisely how it might be done, that we utilize aid to UAR so as to moderate Nasser’s policies.
Next I stressed our interest in seeing area arms problem eased. Our approaches had undergone three phases. First on conventional arms, we had again re-examined US policy and again determined our [Page 447] best course was to continue exercise restraint in supplying arms to principal parties Arab-Israel dispute, with rare exceptions. Second, on missiles we had made thus far unrewarded efforts. We agreed with Israel that UAR missiles not now effective weapons. Third, re nuclear proliferation President Johnson, as was President Kennedy, is very seriously concerned. This was vital global problem, not one related merely to Arab-Israel confrontation. It most important that IAEA safeguards be applied to nuclear reactors in this area. Eshkol opined disarmament problem should be faced in above order, i.e., conventional arms first and nuclear last. I said we had indications UAR would accept IAEA safeguards. PriMin thought if Nasser accepted safeguards and got a large reactor, he might well then remove reactor from IAEA system.
After review subjects reported separately,3 PriMin stressed Israel not preparing for “war” in connection water issue. I took occasion reiterate our firm opposition to use of military force. Eshkol said he construed our position as opposing “preventive war,” not necessarily opposing “normal shooting” that goes on along borders expecially on Syria-Israel border. I stressed we opposed all shooting as means to solve area problems. Eshkol exclaimed, “It will be done (i.e., Israel would do some shooting). We will not sit quiet for a long time. Arabs can cut off 150 MCM’s of Israel’s water.” I said as GOI well aware from Harriman, Komer, Ambassador, and others, if Israel resorted to shooting “You would find US opposed to you.” To this PriMin said, “We’ll see. The President told me US would back Israel on the water.” I emphasized President was referring to Israel’s getting its share of Jordan waters, not about use of force to attain that end. Eshkol said “OK, you get the water without force, what do you advise?” I said it would be long time before Arabs could divert more water than that allocated them under UDP. Eshkol claimed this was mistaken estimate; Arabs could complete diversion projects in two years if allowed to work without interference.
PriMin requested US move Embassy to Jerusalem. Everyone, with possible exception French, was waiting for this US lead. I said this was not simple bilateral issue; it had important international implications. I did not see our moving Embassy as being in the current picture. [Page 448] Eshkol complained same current picture had obtained almost 18 years. Failure Western powers move to Jerusalem added unnecessary element uncertainty. I pointed out no country outside area had devoted more effort than had US in attempting settle Near East uncertainties. We had worked hard on refugees, water, and other basic problems.
At close of meeting, which was extended on PriMin’s initiative to over one hour, he said he would give much not to be compelled to use “a little force” on water issue, but water was Israel’s life-blood and if necessary Israel would have to fight for it. I stressed, as I had to Mrs. Meir, that if we are to give help on this issue, our views on how we can best help must be considered. We did not consider threat of use of force at all helpful, particularly vis-a-vis delicate political situation in Lebanon.
Note: Of interest that after meeting Director US Dept Bitan told EmbOff PriMin had raised Jerusalem issue on his own because he bitterly disappointed at Bonn’s decision establish Embassy in Tel Aviv. Eshkol had in fact raised all but one item on his personal initiative.
Memcon follows.4
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1964–66, POL 33–1 JORDAN RIVER. Secret. Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Bonn, Damascus, London, Paris,USUN, Jerusalem, POLAD CINCSTRIKE/CINCMEAFSA, Cairo, Rome, Algiers, Baghdad, Jidda, Kuwait, Rabat, Taiz, Tripoli, and Tunis.↩
- Telegram 1360 from Tel Aviv, April 23. (Ibid.)↩
- Telegram 1362 from Tel Aviv, April 23, reported that after their discussion of IAEA safeguards, Eshkol said he thought the Israeli Government could not foreswear nuclear weapon development in the absence of binding security guarantees, but that “we are so far (presumably from having a nuclear weapon)—it would take huge sums of money, then there would be problem of delivery vehicle. But we can’t afford not to think about it, not to try to know all about it,” because of the Israeli Government’s responsibility for the survival of the Jewish people in the face of Arab threats. The quotation marks and the parenthetical insertion are in the telegram. (Ibid., DEF 12–1 ISR)↩
- A summary memorandum of conversation was enclosed with airgram A–808 from Tel Aviv, May 5. (Ibid., POL 33–1 JORDAN RIVER)↩