Office of the Historian

364. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Near Eastern Affairs (Rockwell) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (Rountree)1

Washington, August 21, 1957.

SUBJECT

  • Jordan Ambassador’s Call, Thursday, August 22, 2:15 p.m.

The Jordan Ambassador is calling to convey his Government’s complaint concerning Israel activity in the neutral zone in South Jerusalem2 and to seek U.S. support for Jordan in the Security Council. He will doubtless emphasize the need for U.S. support on this question to strengthen the position of King Hussein.

Background

In July, 1957, Israel workers entered the neutral zone in the Government House area South of Jerusalem under cover of a military guard and began work on the land which slopes downward from the Western border of the zone. The Jordanians immediately protested this act and asked that the Israelis withdraw. While the military guards seem to have withdrawn, it appears that work on the land continues.

The Israel position is that the work in the zone is merely the preparation of the soil for the planting of trees needed to control erosion and that no military advantage accrues. They cite an agreement concluded with the Jordanians in 1949, but never ratified, which divides the zone between the two parties and the fact that the Israel activity has been confined to the portion of the zone allocated to them.

The Jordanian position is that the Chief of Staff of UNTSO is the supreme authority in the zone and that it is incumbent on him to maintain the status quo there. The Jordanians suspect that the Israel activity aims at establishing de facto control over the Western half of the zone. Jordan’s position is complicated by the fact that in the past the Jordanians have built trench fortifications in the zone (which were manned during the first days of the present dispute) and that the new Jerusalem-Bethlehem road which cuts through the zone often carries military traffic.

The Chief of Staff of UNTSO does not accept the Jordanian position that he has supreme authority in the zone. The Israel–Jordan General [Page 710] Armistice Agreement3 seems to bear out this thesis. The Jordanians seem to be drawing an inaccurate parallel between this neutral zone and the demilitarized zones between Syria and Israel created by the Israel-Syrian Armistice Agreement. The Chief of Staff feels that this is a problem to be handled by the Mixed Armistice Commission which Israel is presently boycotting. Because of the boycott, the Chief of Staff hesitates to call a meeting of the MAC inasmuch as he would almost certainly be presented with a Jordanian resolution inaccurate as to the true situation in the zone, on which he would either have to abstain or vote against.

This incident has had some repercussions in the area. The fact that the Israel activity continues in full sight of the population of Arab-held Jerusalem has been seized upon by the Syrian and Egyptian propaganda as “proof” that King Hussein has made a deal with Israel and sold out to them this portion of the neutral zone. The Jordanians therefore felt that they must take action against the Israelis and, according to a statement released on August 19 (attached)4 have complained to the Secretary General about the Chief of Staff of UNTSO and instructed their delegate at the United Nations to seek a Security Council meeting on this point.

U.S. Position: We seek to avoid Security Council discussion of this question at present and have so stated to the Jordanians (Deptel 371 to Amman).5 We have also urged the Israelis to cease activity in the neutral zone for the time being.

United Nations Developments: The Secretary General was approached by the Jordanian UN representative on August 20. The Jordanian said that he had been instructed to request an urgent meeting of the Council but went on to observe that certain legal issues still needed clarification. The Secretary General cautioned against precipitate action on three bases: a) the complaint needed more clarification; b) the case presented certain legal difficulties; and c) it would certainly lead to a discussion of wider issues in the Council. The Secretary General suggested that this be reported to the Jordanian Foreign Minister before definitive action were [Page 711] taken. The Jordanian said he would do this (New York’s 240, August 20).6

Recommendation

That you state our position to the Jordanian Ambassador as set forth in Deptel 371 to Amman (attached).7

  1. Source: Department of State, NEA/NE Files: Lot 59 D 582, Office Memos, 1957. Confidential. Drafted by Bergus.↩
  2. Reference is to the neutral zone surrounding Government House, the former residence of the British High Commissioner of Jerusalem. Background documents concerning its neutral status are attached to despatch 24 from Jerusalem, August 15. (Ibid., Central Files, 684A.85/8–1557)↩
  3. For text of the Israeli-Jordanian Armistice Agreement, signed at Rhodes on April 3, 1949, see Official Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 1.↩
  4. Not attached to the source text.↩
  5. Telegram 371, August 20, instructed the Embassy in Amman to use the following arguments with the Jordanian Foreign Ministry: The United States did not believe that Security Council consideration of the Jordanian complaint would have a constructive result, as failure to obtain a clear-cut stand in the Council would be used by the Soviet Union, Syria, and Egypt to strengthen opposition to King Hussein; and Jordan would be placed in a vulnerable position in view of its previous activities in the neutral zone. (Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/8–1957)↩
  6. Not printed. (Ibid., 684A.85/8–2057)↩

  7. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Berry spoke with Ambassador Haikal along the lines indicated on August 22. The Department of State transmitted a summary of the conversation to the Embassy in Amman in telegram 388, August 22. (Ibid., 684A.85/8–2257)

    Subsequently, on August 30 in a memorandum to Dulles, Rountree noted that despite U.S. efforts, Israeli activities in the neutral zone surrounding Government House continued. (Ibid.,NEA/NE Files: Lot 59 D 582, Memos to the Secretary thru S/S) Later that day, the Department of State instructed the Embassy in Tel Aviv to request the Israeli Government once again to terminate its activities in the area. (Telegram 191 to Tel Aviv, August 30; ibid., Central Files, 684A.85/8–2057)

    ↩