Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

McGhee Files: Lot 53 D 468

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)¹

confidential

[Washington,] April 6, 1951.

Subject: Visit of Israel Ambassador

Participants:	H. E. Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel
	Mr. Moshe Keren, Counselor, Embassy of Israel
	NEA—Mr. McGhee
	NEA—Mr. Berry
	NE—Mr. Lewis Jones
	NE—Mr. Waldo

The Israel Ambassador called to discuss the following subjects with me:

1. The Syrian-Israel dispute: The Israel Ambassador outlined the Israel position on the Demilitarized Zone. He said that Israel claimed full sovereignty over the Zone and that a letter from Ralph Bunche to Israel military representatives fully confirmed the Israel view. If the Syrians persisted in their attitude of obstruction in the Zone, the Israel Government would be forced to release the letter to the public.

The Israel Ambassador claimed that Syria had violated the Armistice Agreement in attempting to prevent Israel engineering operations in the Demilitarized Zone. The Armistice Agreement specifically provided for the gradual restoration of normal civilian life in the area. The Hule project had been under consideration for a long time and the draining of the swamps could only be considered as providing for the restoration of ordinary civil life in the zone. The Israel Government could not permit either Syria or the UN to hold up progress in the Demilitarized Zone indefinitely. After a certain length of time one could consider that the Armistice Agreements became obsolete. He was firmly convinced, therefore, that the Arab states should negotiate final peace settlements instead of obstructing legitimate Israel operations in Israel territory. The Israel government took a very serious view of the shooting of the seven Israel policemen in the Demilitarized Zone. He regretted that the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission and the French Colonel Bossavy had not seen fit to go to the scene of the shooting. In the Israel view, Colonel Bossavy was no longer acceptable as Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission. The policemen had been killed on Israel soil while on a routine patrol mission. The Israel government had thereupon undertaken punitive action and bombed Syrian border fortifications.

Mr. Waldo said that a cable from Jerusalem² reported that the Israel press release on the killing of the policemen was substantially correct, except that initial reports from UN observers in the area to the Deputy Chief of Staff in Jerusalem appeared to indicate that the Israel policemen might have been shot on Syrian soil.

I informed the Ambassador that since we did not have all the facts on the situation in the Demilitarized Zone we were not in a position to adjudicate the case. We did feel, however, that Israel could not unilaterally interpret the Armistice Agreement. With regard to the shooting of the policemen, however, and the subsequent bombing by Israel of Syrian soil, I informed the Ambassador that, while we deeply regretted the shooting of the policemen, that incident in no way justified the deliberate retaliatory bombing of Syrian positions. It was one thing for incidents to occur on the spot where it was frequently impossible to determine who was at fault, since there might be an exchange of rifle shots from both sides; it was another matter entirely for the government of Israel to undertake reprisals by bombing. We could not over-estimate the gravity of the situation and were taking up the matter of the Syrian-Israel border incidents with the French and with the British.³

2. The Ambassador then took up the question of the grant-aid bill. He admitted that Israel was a part of the Near East region, but believed there should be no discrimination as between Israel and the Arab states; if the Arabs should appeal to the US for economic assistance, Israel considered such a move a progressive step on their part; if the Arab states did not consider they were justified in asking the US for economic assistance, Israel did not believe that this should deter the US from extending aid to Israel. He thought that the US made somewhat of a fetish of regionalism; Arab needs were less than those of Israel, since Israel had special problems which had to be considered outside of the general framework of plans for the Near East as a whole. The Ambassador considered that the US would be strengthened by assisting Israel and it would improve the special relationship that existed between the US and Israel. He said that Israel representatives were ready to discuss the matter with the Department at any time.

I informed the Ambassador that the US would not expect Israel to submit an overall program for the Near East, since that was a matter which lay within our determination. I told him that the request for grant-aid was being given careful consideration.

3. The Israel Ambassador informed me that Israel has submitted its request for one and a half billion dollars of reparations from Germany, with great seriousness. He said that he doubted that the Germans who supported Hitler would now help defend the democracies and that those Germans must expatiate their sins. Israel opinion on the question of German reparations was very agitated, and Mr. Horowitz planned to meet with officers of the German Affairs Bureau and discuss this problem. I told the Ambassador that this matter was one primarily for consideration by another Bureau of the Department.

1. Memorandum drafted by Mr. Waldo.
2. Reference is to telegram 184 from Jerusalem, April 5, not printed. (683.84A/4–551)

3. Notes which in part embodied the position taken here by Mr. McGhee regarding the Huleh dispute and the incident at El Hamma were delivered to the Embassy of Israel and the Legation of Syria on April 7.

   In the note to Israel, the Department also stated in part that the United States “assumed” that Israel would “… cease forthwith military action in the area and [would] act in accord with the findings of the United Nations.

   “In the long run, the position of Israel in the Near East is dependent upon the development of friendly relations with the Arab States.” (Text is contained in telegram 421 to Tel Aviv, April 7; 683.84A/4–751.)

   In the note to Syria, the Department recounted the representations made to Israel and also stated in part: “The United States likewise urges the Syrian Government to take immediate steps to assure that there will be no further recourse to violence on the part of Syrian forces.” (Text is contained in telegram 366 to Damascus, April 7, repeated to Tel Aviv as number 420; 683.84A/4–751.)

   At the Department’s press and radio news conference held April 9, at 12:35 p. m., Mr. McDermott verbally made public the substance of the two notes. The transcript of his remarks is included in Department of State “Daily News Conferences”, vi, 1951, under date of April 9, pp. 2–5.