683.84A/5–451: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (Davis) to the Department of State 1
niact
709. 1. Comment to Deptel 480, May 12 and intel 1 a.m. May 33 following Embtel 704, May 4.3
Emb believes that draft res is based on earlier situation which has now changed in important respects, and that if presented in present form wld now be definitely harmful. It does not take into account fundamental change which has taken place in Israel attitude and policy. Earlier subjective attitude and disposition to override UNTSO auth have given way to what appears to be genuine determination to be scrupulously correct in observance terms armistice agreement and coop with UN.
2. Developments evidencing change in policy include public expression of regret over retaliatory bombing, agreement FonMin and Col De Bidder (Embtel 706, May 4)4 to confine work for time being to west bank of Jordan, apparent restraint now being practiced by Israel forces in face of present attacks (Embtel 705, May 4),5 more coop attitude of Israel auths toward service attachés.
3. It ignores more recent breach of peace in Israel-Syrian border area and possible effect thereof on relative position of parties to dispute. Army Attaché, who has just returned from areas where firing now in progress, reports notable restraint on part Israel forces under what he terms extreme provocation, and firing from Syrian positions in volume suggesting mil formations.
4. In light of foregoing, singling out of Israel for public rebuke in latter part of Section 9 of draft res without any ref to use of force by Syria cld not but give this country and its sympathizers reason for complaint. If this action is to be mentioned specifically as violation of terms of armistice agreement, they certainly wld not understand failure to criticize Syria for resorting to mil action such as involved killing of Israel police near El Hamma and soldiers north of Sea of Galilee [Page 663] near Tall Al Matilla. There is some question whether one violation shld be mentioned unless all are specified. It may be desirable to criticize both parties for having resorted to any mil action whatsoever.
5. It is doubted also whether any useful purpose is served by mentioning Israel by name in Section 7 of the proposed draft since it wld be just as effective and less offensive simply to state that it is inconsistent with objectives and intent of armistice agreement for parties to refuse to participate in meetings.
6. Emb inclined favor inclusion subsection (b) para 10 subject Gen Riley’s approval without alteration, but suggests amending subsection (a) to take into account that return of Arabs in some cases impossible, because of destruction of homes. Hence Dept may wish include provision for early compensation such cases. Emb believes moreover effort shld be made to avoid if possible stalement produced by few landholders who cld not be persuaded accept compensation and permit development project to proceed. Unreasonably obstructive tactics on part of few persons cld still endanger internatl peace.
7. It is suggested also that position of extremely important point (11) be changed to final point in order that document end on note urging peaceful settlement. Emb hopes SC intervention may be so handled as to induce parties to negot permanent peace settlement near future.6
- Telegram repeated for information to Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Jerusalem, Jidda, London, and Paris.↩
- Same as telegram 891 to New York, p. 652.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- This telegram indicated in part that the agreement mentioned had gone into effect some time after April 27. (683.84A/5–451) In telegram 590 from Damascus, May 5, the Legation commented in part: “Confining work west bank of Jordan, even if practicable still fails justify continued disregard MAC chairman’s decisions.” (683.84A/5–551)↩
- This telegram reads in part: “Army attaché who returned late May 3 from reconnaissance in area recent Israel–Syria fighting reports present behavior Israel Army entirely correct and his impression Israel army determined avoid any action which cld subject them to criticism. Israel Army apparently has instructions to confine all military action to ‘nondemilitarization Israel territory.’… Service attachés have received full cooperation Israel auths re latest incidents.” (683.84A/5–451)↩
-
In telegram 584 from Damascus May 4, the Legation commented on the draft Security Council resolution in part as follows:
“Dept’s draft SC resolution Deptel 412 [891 to New York] appears to us to meet requirements present situation. We feel moreover urgent need exists for SC to clarify all of issues dealt with in draft plus requirement Israeli provide UN officials full access and facilities parts of zone at all times. Leg believes para 10(A) shld not be deleted and in fact shld affirm obligation Israeli to reconstruct destroyed homes.” (683.84A/5–451)
↩