867N.01/6–849: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
niact
439. Personal attention of President and Acting Secretary. Current press reports from Washington, New York, and Lausanne tend confirm judgment Israeli officials (given me privately, see Embtel 429, June 71) that United States is moving towards policy which will ask of this country surrender of at least portion southern Negev as “compensation” for its retention of territories Israeli armies have conquered outside November 29 partition area.
Though Department has given no specific indication that demand for surrender of Negev tip is its policy, I can see no other territory to which this insistence could be logically applied. From point of view of American and British strategic interests it would be advantageous if Britain could be guaranteed land bridge (either through Transjordan or Egyptian occupation) from Sinai desert to Transjordan; and only such possible bridge is, of course, southern Negev.
Two considerations should, however, I think give us pause before Department and President commit themselves irretrievably to this policy.
- 1.
- I am as convinced, as I have ever been of anything, that Israeli Government will not yield any portion of southern Negev unless forced do so; and this force will have to be military force or such a degree of economic pressure as would be tantamount to war.
- 2.
- In its resistance to giving up southern Negev tip, Israel would have at least full moral support of Soviet Union.
New subject: Reply President’s note (Deptel 322, May 28) promised for this afternoon.
- Not printed.↩