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

683.84A/5–1051: Telegram

The Minister in Syria (Cannon) to the Department of State ¹

secret
niact

Damascus, May 10, 1951—10 p. m.

616. ReDepcirtel 676, May 7² (reed this afternoon). Re Amb Eban’s request for good offices US on behalf Israel and arguments he presented Legation has fol comment:

1. Since early Mar US counselled Syrian restraint and full cooperation with UN; French and Brit have done likewise; Syrian record of cooperation attested by UN reports. No evidence divergence from this policy despite Israel disregard MAC decisions and steady deterioration situation. See fol tel re Shishikli renewed assurances this regard to me today.

2. Eban’s charge of “gross fallacy” is shocking example high pressure campaign apparently designed convince world conflict began May 4 whereas whole series of developments have taken course feared by Syrians as stated Legtels 404,³ Feb 20, 458, Mar 14.⁴ We suspect some assistance from Syria for Arabs fighting protect their homes and Legation military attaché’s tel CL–177⁵ like Tel Aviv tels listed material observed on spot and allegedly left behind when Arabs driven back. Important to note that observers report what they see but do not speculate or interpret one way or other. We have not seen TSO reports indicating Syrian army intervention.

3. As for Eban’s concern lest US objectivity be encouraging Syrians in “deception” that only civilians involved, UN reports alone can be considered authoritative. See fuller discussion below.

4. Question water rights opens highly complex problem involving Syria Jordan and Israel. Comments this subject in subsequent msg based on Legation’s detailed study available data. Israel “special tenacity” does not alter fact armistice agreement and interpretative documentation show that sovereignty over zone is in dispute and to be decided in final peace settlement. We doubt any French involvement question water rights and regard injection this new charge possible attempt confuse issues. French here have often talked about dispute but never mentioned this aspect.

Gen contention that Syria has launched aggressive attack on Israel is wholly out of keeping with demonstrated Syrian policy of restraint and is not in accord with UN observer reports. Moreover, intense propaganda campaign over Shamalneh incident has tended obscure fact it is but one of series incidents, which make pattern of organized Israel campaign to eliminate indigenous Arab inhabitants demilitarized zone to bolster Israel claim to area. Perhaps clearest example is Israel action against Arabs of Samra (Legtel 530, Apr 13⁶ and TSO reports) in which no question or charge Syrian involvement. UN reports give clear picture as to Israeli acts at Ghannameh, Khuri Farm, Samra and Nuqeib and leave little doubt as to illegal nature original Israel incursion into Al Hammeh and subsequent bombing. In evaluating available evidence we can not dismiss possibility Shamalneh incident may have been contrived to counteract unfavorable publicity given Israel resistance to UN authority in area.

We believe that US has much at stake in this matter. While we recognize immed problems remain those of obtaining effective ceasefire and strengthening authority and prestige MAC, it seems essential that US take stand reasserting UN responsibilities in zone and return to conditions of armistice (to which we morally committed by assurances given Syrian Govt when we encouraged them to reach agreement) or risk shaking to foundation already precarious US position in Syria and Arab world.

This public stand cld probably best be taken in speech by chairman US del to UN but it shld not be long delayed. Ideally it shld come prior to Arab League Political Comite mtg here May 14, where all-important decisions may be made amidst inflammatory public clamor. We hope at least instructions may be sent our chiefs of mission in Arab countries prior this mtg authorizing them give conference reassurances Arab govts in sense above recommendation.⁷

Cannon

1. Telegram repeated for information to Amman, Ankara, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Jerusalem, Jidda, London, and Paris.
2. In this telegram the Department had summarized a conversation held May 7 between Mr. Eban, Mr. Berry, and other officials, in which the Ambassador had requested on behalf of Israel the good offices of the United States in restoring peace to the Demilitarized Zone. “He expressed feeling his Govt that big powers not make sufficiently strenuous representations Damascus this question. … Eban stated our analysis was based on ‘gross fallacy’ that Arabs involved were civilians.” The Ambassador had also stated Israeli belief that France was “… endeavoring assist Syria obtain water sources. Israel wld display ‘special tenacity’ re this area as Israel existence wld be threatened without water sources.” (683.84A/5–751)
3. Not printed, but see footnote 2. p. 591.
4. Not printed, but see footnote 6, p. 592.
5. Not found in Department of State files.
6. Not printed. (683.84A/5–1151)
7. In circular telegram 702, May 11, sent to Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, and Jidda, and repeated for information to Jerusalem, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, the Department stated in part: “Damascus tel 616 May 10 most helpful. Dept endeavoring finalize draft [ SC] resolution. … Best we can hope to do re Arab Lea sue Political Comm mtg Damascus May 14 is to supply Arab capitals with draft for confidential disclosure Arab governments.” (683.84A/5–1151)