501.BB Palestine/6–1349: Telegram
Mr. John C. Ross to the Secretary of State
720. Following is summary of information obtained from Bundle’s staff on June 13.
In answer to specific question, Bunche does not request assistance from us in respect to Government House zone problem. He says that if Riley is unsuccessful, he may call for help.
Syrian-Israeli armistice negotiations postponed to June 14 or 15 since Vigier and Riley in Jerusalem, and Dayan has just been named to head armistice negotiation delegation. Israelis have already agreed to new date, which is to be finally set after situation re demilitarized zone at Government House is settled. Vigier has cabled Bunche that settlement of Jerusalem demilitarized zone affair is indispensable prior condition for Syrian-Israeli armistice agreement. He has transmitted a note from the Syrians to Bunche which states that Syria cannot ignore the new Israeli aggression in Jerusalem which constitutes a violation of the armistice agreement. It states that Syrians can have little hope for favorable issue from the armistice negotiations since Israelis infringe demilitarized zone agreements, and no guarantees appear to hold firm. Syrian note refers to Israeli promise to Riley of mutual withdrawal from demilitarized zone and its alleged subsequent violation.
In reply to foregoing, Bunche has cabled that the Syrian position is extreme and unwise. He recalled that there have been violations of [Page 1132] agreements by both sides in the past, and that it has been the responsibility of the UN to correct these violations. In the present instance the UN is making such correction. He further observes that if the criterion of compliance with agreements were used, neither side would qualify for participation in further negotiations. He also said he must challenge the implication that the UN is unable or not willing to carry out its commitments. He finally observed that recriminations were not helpful for the upcoming negotiations.
Bunche also cabled Israelis today that he considered incident at Government House would have harmful repercussions on the armistice negotiations at present critical stage. He termed affair a deplorable incident and urged that every step be taken urgently to rectify situation so that armistice negotiations may proceed soonest. Said it was understandable that Syrians wish efficacy of demilitarized zones and that UN could not guarantee sanctity of such zones. Cabled that there was no question but that UN had a special status at Scopus and Government House in connection with observation of demilitarization. Zones could only be altered by mutual agreement of parties. Pointed out that Rhodes armistice delegations of both parties could testify that no armistice agreement would have been possible were it not for the UN supervision of demilitarized Government House and Scopus zones. Pointed out that the lines of both zones were determined by the SC truce arrangements. Any change in these lines could be made only by mutual agreement. Unilateral change was violation of SC truce. While he had no responsibility of supervision of armistice, as acting mediator, he still had responsibility for SC truce. If lines were altered unilaterally and Israelis persisted in such truce violation, he would have no recourse except to report matter to SC.1
Eban informed Reedman this morning, in Bunche’s absence, that he was confident that Jerusalem situation would be straightened out. However, Eban alleged that UN had no business in being in Jerusalem demilitarized zone. In effect, he said that it was UN itself which had violated the armistice agreement. Reedman informed USUN that he had pointed out to Eban that armistice agreement provided that any change in lines must be made by mutual agreement. However, even in event of mutual agreement, UN as third party present in zone must be informed even if only by courtesy. Also referred to SC truce line provisions. Eban also argued that demilitarized zone lines had been altered by Israeli-Jordan agreement. Alleged that there had been no Jordan protest until it had been stirred up by other Arab states. [Page 1133] Reedman was able to cite spontaneous Jordanian protests against Israeli action.
Eban, in letter to Bunche, dated June 10, received by latter today, asked him to use his influence on Jordanians to implement Article 8 of armistice agreement relative to Scopus. Stated that no progress had been made in negotiations. He did not offer any information regarding issues at stake or course of discussions. Since there is no UN observer at special committee meetings, Bunche is almost completely uninformed re status of these discussions.2
- New York, on June 14, reported further on Mr. Bunche’s views on this matter as follows: “While UN has no responsibility re the armistice supervision since agreements are self-contained entities, the SC truce and cease fire arrangements are still in effect. Bunche has responsibility for reporting to SC on these and can therefore bring present situation to attention of SC as violation of November 30 cease-fire agreement.” (telegram 724, 501.BB Palestine/6–1449)↩
- New York advised, on June 14, that “Bunche this noon requested US support for his urgent request to Israelis that they withdraw from Government House demilitarized zone.” It also reported that “Eban agreed fully with Bunche that UN was rightfully in demilitarized zone on request of parties and could only be asked to leave if mutual agreement on disposition of zone reached between parties.” (telegram 724, 501.BB Palestine/6–1449)↩