867N.01/12–3149: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
922. At his request Foreign Minister talked to me his office 45 minutes December 30 with Eytan and Shiloah present.
Summarizing his recent conversations with Secretary Acheson,1 Sharett said he wished give Department formal statement on Jordan–Israel talks as follows:
Despite promising beginning of earlier talks impasse reached December 23 over “width of corridor.” Israel prepared grant under Jordan jurisdiction or possible sovereignty width sufficient for auto and railroads but will not cede width of 40 to 50 kilometers2 because such demand suggests purpose different from securing free access to sea. Wider corridor could be used for “intensive settlement and as possible base for military operations.” Israel “went as far as it dares politically and perhaps farther than is safe strategically in offering Jordan jurisdiction or sovereignty over narrower corridor.”
Sharett expressed hope that King would revert to earlier conciliatory attitude and that USG would find it possible to indicate to King its hope that “prospects of agreement not be ruined by demand beyond guaranteed freedom of access, and that meantime adventures in Syria not be permitted to inflame ME.”
Comment: Sharett obviously desires conclude peace Jordan but I am sure cabinet dare not yield on wider corridor. End comment.
Sent Department 922, repeated Baghdad 63, Beirut 93, Damascus 68, Jerusalem 110, Jidda 43, London 157, Department pass Amman 74, Cairo 85.
- See memorandum of December 7 by Secretary Acheson, p. 1524.↩
- At 10 p. m. on December 31, Tel Aviv telegraphed a correction of its telegram 922, as follows: “Jordan in December 23 talks with Israel did insist corridor be ‘kilometers wide’ but did not specify number of kilometers. Sharett my house December 31 said ‘Jordan might have meant 10 or 15 kilometers but did not name figure’.” (telegram 923, 867N.01/12–3149)↩