867N.01/12–549
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Wells Stabler of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs
Subject: Israel–Jordan Talks
| Participants: | Mr. Greenhill—British Embassy |
| Mr. Stabler |
Discussion:
Mr. Greenhill read a telegram from the British Minister in Amman regarding the progress of the Israel–Jordan talks. The Israeli representatives, Messrs. Sassoon and Shiloah, and Samir Rifai Pasha had met for the second time at Shuneh on December 1.
[Page 1519]The Israeli representative informed the Jordan representative that Israel had come to the conclusion that it could not cede any territory as part of a settlement with Jordan. Samir Pasha replied that this view was irreconcilable with the earlier recognition by Israel of the necessity for Jordan to have access to the sea. It was necessary for Jordan to receive this access through territory over which Jordan had sovereignty. The Israelis said that this was very difficult and there were many points involved. Samir Pasha replied that in this event there appeared to be no necessity for proceeding further with the talks. Samir Pasha commented to the British Minister that the “visitors had been taken aback” by his statement.
The Israeli representatives then asked what scheme for settlement Jordan had in mind. Samir Pasha replied by asking whether the Israeli claim to the Negeb was based solely on its need for a reserve of land capable of development. The Israel representatives replied in the affirmative. Samir Pasha then suggested that in view of this, Jordan suggested a partition of the Negeb. Israel would take the northern part which was capable of cultivation while Jordan would take the southern part which could not be cultivated in any way. Thus Jordan would not only have access to the sea but also a common frontier with Egypt. The Israelis commented that this question could not be dealt with solely on the basis of the cultivatability of the land and that other factors entered into the situation. There then ensued a long argument which led to no conclusion.
The Israelis then said that they had three points which they wanted to discuss.
With respect to Jerusalem both Israel and Jordan were opposed to internationalization and thought that partition was the best solution. The Israelis asked whether Samir Pasha could give any views on partition to which Samir Pasha replied that he could not at this time. The Israelis then said that it was necessary for them to gratify certain religious elements in Israel. Consequently it was necessary for Israel* to have free access to the Wailing Wall. Samir Pasha said that he would bear this in mind.
The Israelis said that they wished to recommence work at the Potash Works in the Dead Sea and at the Hydroelectric Station at Nahariyim. Samir Pasha replied that Jordan was not prepared to accept this except as part of a general settlement.
The Israelis brought up the question of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty and asked if it were possible for the United Kingdom to keep its bases east of Jordan. While they had no real objection to British bases West [Page 1520] of the Jordan, there was a psychological factor in Israel which had to be borne in mind. It would be easier for Israel to recognize greater Jordan if the British did not return to Palestine. Samir Pasha had nothing to say on this point. The Israelis then said that they assumed that Jordan insistence regarding the Negeb was the result of British strategical requirements. Samir Pasha denied this and said that to show the veracity of his denial he would offer an alternative to the Negeb. Jordan would accept a piece of territory from Hebron through Faluja to Majdal and another from Jenin through Nazareth to Acre. The latter strip would be a substitution of a common frontier with Lebanon for one with Egypt.
Samir Pasha requested the Israelis to return to Tel Aviv and obtain a straight answer on the question of access to the sea and cession of territory. The answer would show whether there was any use of meeting again. The Israelis promised that they would send a message concerning these points on or about December 4.
Samir Pasha commented to the British Minister that the Israelis appear determined not to break off the talks at that meeting and had been considerably shaken when Samir Pasha had suggested that in view of the Israel attitude on the cession of territory, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the talks. While the Israelis had been fairly adamant regarding the cession of territory, particularly in connection with the common frontier with Lebanon, there had been a number of hints that their position was not necessarily final. Samir Pasha said that the meeting had been conducted in a cordial atmosphere.
- to reoccupy the Jewish quarters in the old city and [Footnote in the source text; presumably Mr. Stabler intended that these words be inserted in the text.]↩