501.BB Palestine/5–1349: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
Delga 112. Deptels 265 and 268 May 12.1 Bunche, on May 12, had very unfavorable reaction Israel memo re Syrian-Israel armistice talks because of memo’s inaccuracies, half truths and Israel unwillingness withdraw or reduce forces and permit mixed Armistice Commission control demilitarized zone, especially in respect civilian return to [Page 1006] demilitarized area. He received essentially same note from Eban today and rebutted it strongly. Rather than approach to Syrians, Bunche wishes Department would urge acceptance his compromise (mytel 587, May 12) on Israelis who are the recalcitrants. Bunche made following specific comments re memo:
Lebanese agreement not a fair comparison for Syrian agreement since Israelis agreed withdraw from Lebanon as prior condition to negotiations in talk between Ben-Gurion and Bunche December 5. Also, Israelis were definitely outside Palestine invading Lebanon. Thus is not accurate to state that Mediator during armistice negotiation insisted vigorously on this point and Israel unilaterally accepted withdrawal.
Basis for all armistice negotiations has always been truce lines. Israeli incursion into Egypt was a truce violation in October. Bunche said he did not insist on established international frontiers and never heard of alleged principle that “whenever” a truce line was in vicinity of international frontier armistice line was based upon; frontier and not upon truce positions. Points out that this not true in Gaza, Auja, elsewhere in Negeb, or in Transjordan agreement. As result of other factors it happens to be true on Lebanese front.
It is absolutely not true that Mishmar Hayarden is held in violation of truce. Only Syrian violation was taking Hill 223 from which they have withdrawn.
Re statement that present dispute is only instance of nonconformity to truce or armistice agreement line, Bunche points to Western Galilee occupied by Israelis in October.
Israelis, in speaking of Syrian withdrawal, omit mention of their own withdrawal or radical reduction of forces on which Bunche has been pressing them hard. Thus it is misleading to state that at Lake Success Bunche has indicated sympathy for Israeli stand re demilitarized zone.
Last sentence paragraph 7 and general approach of memo indicate again Israeli claim that they should have all November 29 area plus what they have been able to seize. Points out this does not square with US position re necessity for compensation if adjustments to be made in November 29 lines.
Not mentioned in memo is Israeli claim that their civilians might return to any point in demilitarized zone. Bunche proposal is that Israeli civilians be allowed to return to Mishmar Hayarden, since it was a Jewish settlement, but that others return be controlled by Armistice Commission.
If Israeli-Syrian talks collapse and cannot be revived, Bunche will report to SC placing blame on Israelis. However, he does not envisage [Page 1007] action in immediate future, expecting May 13 talks to be unfruitful but to be continued.
New subject:
Bundle informed from Tel Aviv through Mohn that Ben-Gurion willing meet Zaim only after conclusion Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreement. Bunche observes there is nothing in this for Zaim.