Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

684A.85/9–1550: Telegram

The Chargé in Israel (Ford) to the Secretary of State

secret

Tel Aviv, September 15, 1950—1 p. m.

152. Embtel 149 September 14.¹ Press conference by Israel Chief Staff Yadin September 14 consisted largely saber rattling at Jordan specifically and Arab States generally. Israel’s occupation Jordan–Yarmuk River confluence again upheld with map citations, and while Yadin termed action “farming operation” rather than “land mine clearance” as used by Kollek, his conclusion with respect Israel’s justification largely same. Warning any country which hoped by threats or use of force to achieve changes in frontiers as delineated in armistice agreements that it was deceiving itself and its own people. Yadin told press Israeli Army was “prepared defend every millimetre” of its territory.

British Chargé Chadwick, who discussed with Comay (UD desk office Israel Foreign Office) September 14 contents Jordan note to UN, saying specifically his Government hoped Israel would vacate disputed area until adequate UN investigation had been made, says he was informed this morning by Comay that “Israel Government did not see way clear discontinue its farming operation on Yarmuk River”.

Reliable Foreign Office informant told Embassy today that Israel is today lodging complaint with MAC charging Jordan by its “threat of force” with breach Rhodes agreement.

Comment: Israel double-talk, plus apparent deliberate inconsistency of explanations suggest both local military circles and Foreign Office officials feel completely sure their ground in Yarmuk incident. One suggested reason for action at this time is Israel effort find piece territory which later might be “given away” without causing too much public reaction. End comment.

Department pass information Amman 12; sent Department 152, repeated information Jerusalem 9, London 14, Paris 8.

Ford

1. Not printed; it advised of a conversation with Mr. Kollek on September 14, in which the latter indicated the chief activity of the small force in the disputed area was to clear mines planted there over two years ago (684A.85/9–1450).