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

501.BB Palestine/3–1049: Telegram

The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State

secret

Jerusalem, March 10, 1949—noon.

us urgent

207. Deptel 146, Ninth.¹ Statement by Shiloah that presence Transjordan forces in Negev is “invasion” of Israel appears to be effort camouflage fact advance Israeli forces in Negev constitutes violation SC Resolution July 15 establishing permanent truce in Palestine.

Under Israeli theory all territory alloted by Nov. 29 GA Resolution to Israel is Israeli territory regardless whether occupied by Israel or Arab forces at time truce went into effect. Therefore presence Arab force on such territory is “invasion”. At same time Israel maintains right of conquest to territory allotted Arabs by November 29 GA resolution and now held by its forces. ConGen unable reconcile claim Arab occupation is “invasion” while Israel occupation is not.²

Since truce established by SC in Palestine Transjordan forces have held southern Negev under occupation. Although exact truce lines not delineated by UN observers, territory lying roughly south of parallel 31 controlled by Transjordan through outposts and roving patrols. Thus present advance Israeli forces appears constitute as flagrant violation SC truce order as advance into Arab lines at any other point. Is equivalent to Transjordan attack towards Israeli-“invaded” Ramie or Lydda.

Israeli action apparently intended obtain occupation all Negev before permanent armistice lines drawn at Rhodes. This would face UN with still another fait accompli and give Israeli another political and military advantage during time of truce.

Consul General feels strongest representations should be made to Israel Government against any advance by Israeli forces into Negev areas occupied by Transjordan and that representations should not be limited crossing by Israel of old Transjordan frontier as indicated in penultimate paragraph Deptel 146. Advance by Israeli forces constitutes not only violation truce but jeopardized Rhodes armistice negotiations, work of PCC and will destroy slowly developing willingness Arab States negotiate settlement with Israel.³

Sent Department, repeated Amman 14, Beirut 27, Damascus 10, Baghdad 11, pouched Jidda, Cairo.

Burdett

1. This was a repeat of No. 145 to Tel Aviv, not printed; but see footnote 5, p. 811.
2. Mr. Shiloah, the head of the Israeli Delegation at Rhodes, sent a message of March 9 to Mr. Bunche, in which he stated that he had been instructed to inform the latter that “nowhere in the Negev are Israeli land or air forces operating outside the borders of Israel.” The message continued that the crossing of Transjordanian forces into Israeli territory constituted “a serious embarrassment to the conduct of our present negotiations.” The message registered the strongest protest by the Israeli Government and requested Mr. Bunche to transmit the protest and a demand for immediate withdrawal to the Transjordanian Government (telegram 298, March 10, 12:40 p. m., from New York, 501.BB Palestine/3–1049).
3. Jerusalem, on March 11, advanced the view that “Because small Arab Legion strength in region Israel apparently believes can occupy area quickly, without serious fighting and with minimum world attention. Israel can then maintain publicly area never under Arab Legion control and any subsequent action by Legion to recover positions constitutes ‘invasion’ Israeli territory.” (telegram 215, 867N.01/3–1149)