Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume VI

867N.01/3–1049

Memorandum by the Secretary of State to the President

secret

Washington, March 10, 1949.

We received two rather alarming telegrams from our Legation in Amman, the capital of Transjordan, yesterday afternoon. The first¹ indicated that Israeli forces in rather large strength had started moving into the southern Negev area which, according to the telegram, is under Arab Legion occupation. The second telegram² reported that King Abdullah had informed our Chargé d’Affaires that Israeli forces had been attacking an Arab Legion post at Ein Gharandal, four miles inside the Transjordan frontier.³

The Department called in Ambassador-designate Elath⁴ and gave him the substance of the reports we had received. Elath brought with him a telegram which Dr. Bunche had sent the Israeli Government from Rhodes quoting a note which Bunche had received from the Chief of the Transjordan armistice delegation at Rhodes informing him under the instructions of the Transjordan Government that Israeli forces had crossed the Transjordan military lines in the Negev on the morning of March 7 and describing the situation as extremely delicate. The Transjordan Government requested in this note to Bunche that Israeli forces cease such operations during their armistice negotiations and withdraw to their original positions.

Elath also had with him the text of Tel Aviv’s reply to Bunche which asserted that nowhere in the Negev were Israeli land or air forces operating outside the Israeli borders, and that these forces had not crossed and did not intend to cross the Transjordan frontier. The Israeli reply referred to the fact that the Transjordan note revealed the presence of Transjordan forces in the Negev and stated that this constituted a serious embarrassment to the armistice negotiations. The Israeli Government then registered a strong protest against this “invasion” and requested Bunche to transmit to the Transjordan Government the Israeli demand for the immediate withdrawal of the Transjordan forces to their own side of the frontier.

The Department expressed to Elath the gravest concern as regards the situation and strongly impressed upon him the serious consequences that would ensue should the report of the Israeli incursion into Transjordan be verified. Elath stated that his government was fully aware of and had no desire to provoke such consequences.⁵

This morning Elath has telephoned the Department to say that he has had a further telegram from Foreign Minister Sharett (Shertok) again stating categorically that no Israeli forces had crossed into Transjordan or had any intention of doing so.⁶

Ambassador Franks has also telephoned me to inform me of telegrams about this situation which he has received. He had been instructed to see me, but thought he would not trouble me by coming down in person. He added that the information he was giving me was for you as well as for me. He said that the movement of a considerable Israeli force south into the Negev toward the Gulf of Akaba was not in line with the Security Council resolution and that the recent armistice could not override the Security Council. The British also have reports, not yet confirmed, that the Israelis have moved into Transjordan territory. He confirmed our information that Bunche is sending observers into the area to report on the situation, and said that his government hoped to hear from these observers soon.

The Ambassador further said that his government had sent instructions to the British forces in Akaba to the effect that if the Israeli forces fire on British forces, the fire is to be returned, and that if Israeli aircraft fly over British forces they will be engaged. The British Consul at Haifa has also been instructed to give the Israeli Government the exact text of the instructions.

The Ambassador then said that the only bit of more encouraging information he had is a report from Amman indicating that the Israeli forces which had made contact with the Arab Legion inside Transjordan had broken off contact at dusk yesterday and retreated west ward. This later information is confirmed in a telegram which the Department received from the Legation at Amman this morning that Israeli forces have left Transjordan territory and are proceeding southward toward the Gulf of Akaba.

Sir Oliver Franks then said that he wished to express to me the anxiety of his government and to explain what they had done in the situation. The Ambassador later phoned to say that the Ambassador had forgotten to make the following statement: “We were reluctant to believe that Israeli forces had taken this action, but if the news of an aggression into Transjordan territory is confirmed, British obligations under the Anglo-TransJordan Treaty will, of course, immediately come into question.”

I thinked the Ambassador for this information and said that I felt sure the British at Akaba would behave with restraint and not allow any minor incident to set off the balloon. I also told him of the reports we had received from the Israelis denying the truth of the report that they had crossed into Transjordan. I pointed out that the frontier is not marked, and that if someone should wander across it without evil intent it would be too bad to set off the whole show. The ambassador said he would use what I had told him in a message to his government. The important point was he said as I would know that “this does touch his people on a very raw nerve”.

1. No. 88, March 9, not printed.
2. No. 90, March 9, not printed.
3. A third telegram of March 9, No. 89, gave Mr. Stabler’s view that the Israeli advance, when negotiations for an armistice by Transjordan and Israel were proceeding, “seems ultimate in breach of good faith” and a flouting of the United Nations by Israel. The Israeli action was said to be “further evidence to Arabs that Israeli intentions, far from being peaceful, are perfidious and aggressive.… Cause of peace, which Israel claims earnestly to desire, is not being served through this later maneuver.” Mr. Stabler then recommended urgently that the United States “make immediate representations in strongest possible terms to Israel demanding that Israeli forces return at once to and remain in positions occupied at time commencement Rhodes talks and that Israel finally accept principle that any questions relating to territorial disposition must await final peace settlement.” (501.BB Palestine/3–949)
4. Elianu Elath, who had recently changed his surname from Epstein.
5. The information covered in Secretary Acheson’s memorandum up to this point was sent to Tel Aviv in telegram 145, March 9, 7 p. m. The Department instructed Mr. McDonald to convey to the Israeli Foreign Office its expression of “gravest concern” and of “serious consequences” should the reported Israeli incursion into Transjordan be verified (867N.01/2–2849). Telegram 145 was repeated to London, Amman, New York and to Jerusalem as No. 146, identified also as Unpal 55, for Mr. Ethridge. It was sent also to Beirut, Baghdad, Damascas, Jidda, and Cairo the following day in a circular telegram of March 10 (867N.01/3–1049).
6. Mr. Satterthwaite’s memorandum of conversation states that he “thanked Mr. Elath for the prompt response to our inquiries, and took occasion to point out that our representations had not been based on press reports but on information which we had received from our representatives. I expressed the hope that there would be no further developments which might adversely affect the present delicate negotiations.” (867N.01/3–1049)