683.84A/5–1551
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African Affairs (McGhee)
Subject: Syrian-Israel Situation
| Participants: | Abba Eban, Ambassador of Israel. |
| Moshe Keren, Counselor, Embassy of Israel | |
| NEA—Mr. McGhee | |
| NE—Mr. Waldo |
Mr. Eban called on me at his request. He said the Prime Minister had directed him to inform the Department of a recent order which had been sent to the Director General of the Palestine Land Development Company in Jerusalem by the Chairman of the Syrian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission. The Ambassador quoted the directive which was dated May 12, as follows:
“In accordance with authority vested in the Chairman of the Syrian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission under Art. 5 of General Armistice Agreement, I hereby direct immediate cessation of all Lake Hula and Jordan River drainage works in Demilitarized Zone until such time as agreement on such works can be reached under supervision of Chairman or through directives or resolutions of higher authority.”
The Ambassador said the Prime Minister had told him to state that the Israel Government considered the language of this directive highly inappropriate and was of the view the Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission had no right to issue an order on this subject either to the Palestine Land Development Company or the Israel Government itself. The Chairman of the Mixed Armistice Commission did not have civil jurisdiction in the Demilitarized Zone nor was he in any way authorized to interfere with the purely civil authority in the Zone. The Israel Government itself could not call on the Palestine Land Development Company to cease its activities because the company and [Page 685] its operations were a purely private concern and Israel law did not empower the Israel Government to interfere in such matters. The Israel Government was not, therefore, in a position to cooperate with the Chairman on this particular subject.
The Ambassador expressed the hope that the Security Council would not attempt to interfere in the matter and that the US would not take a position which might have an unfortunate effect on US-Israel relations. Mr. Eban pointed out that both Syria and Israel had agreed to the SC cease fire of May 8 and he felt that there was no reason why the SC should be called upon to consider the situation further. The Armistice Agreement was a bilateral arrangement between the Israelis and the Syrians and no party outside of those two had a right to interfere with the workings of that agreement. The Ambassador stated that the Prime Minister had said the Israel Government could never order these engineering operations to cease in the Zone as it was something to which the Government was fully committed, and in the light of the recent incidents in the Zone, any Israel Government which attempted to hold up the operations would face great internal difficulties. The Ambassador implied that Israel would be in a difficult position if the SC should attempt to interfere with the Israel operations in the Zone. The Ambassador further said that in the early discussions with the Department Mr. Berry had informed him that the Department considered the drainage operations in the Huleh area a highly desirable activity which should not be stopped by the objections of a handful of Arabs.
I took issue with the Ambassador on this statement, and told him that Mr. Berry and the Department considered the drainage operations in the Huleh area desirable but engineering operations in the Zone should only be carried out after proper arrangements had been made through the Chairman of the MAC. We believed that there was a right way and a wrong way to proceed in the matter and that if the Israel Government proceeded in the right way we believed it would be possible to work out a means whereby drainage operations could be undertaken. Israel, however, had chosen to proceed with the activities in the Zone without the necessary permission of the Chairman of the MAC.
It was further pointed out to the Ambassador that the US hoped that Israel would not put itself in a position of refusing to comply with the SC resolution. It was within the competence of the SC to consider any dispute and in this particular case both of the parties had submitted complaints for SC consideration and were responsible for the fact that the SC was presently considering the problem. Not all of the complaints had been disposed of by the recent cease fire resolution.
[Page 686]I said that I could not anticipate the action which the SC might take since there were other governments concerned in the Council beside the US. We felt that Israel should abide by the findings of the Council and our position would be made clear when the time came.