867N.01/3–849: Telegram
The Special Representative of the United States in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
184. Re Deptel 133 March 5.1 Conferred Foreign Minister2 5 p. m. March 7. Knox and Andrus3 present. Foreign Minister stated that report received by us apparently based on two misunderstandings.
- 1.
- Israeli representatives have made no claim whatsoever for amendment or rectification of Israeli-Lebanon frontier.
- 2.
- What was said about frontiers in present preliminary discussion referred to armistice lines concerning which Israeli representatives put forth idea that certain points armistice lines might not logically conform to legal frontiers because of topographical difficulties; if such viewpoint in armistice negotiations is maintained by Israeli it will, of course, be without prejudice to frontier lines.
Foreign Minister emphasized the above misunderstood minor points were far overshadowed by (and merely a part of) two major difficulties as follows.
- 1.
- Israelis have agreed in principle to Bundle’s proposal the frontier lines will be armistice lines but Israelis make condition that this proposal apply to whole frontier including Syrian and not only part thereof.
- 2.
- As regards Netulla salient, while Israelis troops are over into Lebanon on western side of salient the Syrians are occupying Israel territory on eastern side. The Lebanese demand that Israeli withdraw from Lebanon in the west while Syria refuses to withdraw in the east would, because of topography, squeeze Israeli army into a militarily unmaneuverable area if the Syrians attacked. Thus Israeli tentative viewpoint is (1) pending understanding with Syria Israel would prefer that Lebanon-Israel armistice (not frontier) line be drawn through an agreed part of the Lebanon occupied territory west of salient in order prevent withdrawing Israel forces into a salient narrowed by Syrian occupation and a possible military trap; (2) if Syria would agree evacuate Israel territory in eastern salient Israel would readily yield their position in west.
Comment: Foreign Minister’s explanation involves very technical military points of involved positions and is given herein as under stood by mission. Mission has impression that Israel very anxious for armistice with Lebanon (with which country Israel never felt it had a real quarrel as compared with other Arab states) but that negotiations badly complicated at moment owing interposition of Syrian [Page 803] troops and unwillingness Israel yield all bargaining points to Lebanon and be left with no cards to play for Syrian evacuation of Israel territory. This obviously awkward because it places Lebanon in middle of possible impasse between Syria and Israel. Mission has hopes time and Bundle’s skill will solve problem. End comment.
While mission believes that very cautious approach should be used at this juncture to avoid complicating individual points of negotiations we are prepared, at Department’s instructions, use all influence possible vis-à-vis Israel to assist UN in any fair, militarily logical, and politically possible solution.
Department pass Army.