Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

684A.85/2–253: Telegram

No. 554
The Ambassador in Israel (Davis) to the Department of State¹

confidential
priority

Tel Aviv, February 2, 1953—2 a.m.

1231. Embtels 1224² and 1226,³ Amman Embassy telegram 611⁴ and Jerusalem ConGen telegram 93 to Department.⁵

It has become increasingly evident that Israel’s recent incursions into Jordan and Gaza strips result from major policy decision based on conviction that volume of infiltration was intolerable and that Arab authorities concerned could not or would not cooperate in keeping it in check. It seems further that present violations of frontiers are principally military operations resulting from pursuit of armed marauders across frontiers in endeavor capture or destroy them. This is borne out by information obtained from several sources here and Jerusalem ConGen reports. Sharett told me Saturday that time and place of incidents had not been determined by IG in advance but had depended on circumstances of pursuit as part of action against intruders.

Above was confirmed by Lt. Colonel Gaon, Commander Israel delegate MACs, in informal conversation with Embassy officer last night. Gaon described present activities as policy of “active defense” explaining that Israel patrols had instructions to ambush armed infiltrators and not lose contact with them until they are destroyed. He commented further on complete failure of Commander’s agreement to control infiltration, remarking that it was a good agreement if implemented but in circumstances it only served to tie Israel’s hands. Like Foreign Minister (Embtel 1200)⁶ he qualified his statement re official Jordan responsibility for infiltration, saying on basis item DF interrogation of large number of infiltrators he believes only small percentage were deliberately sent as part of policy of espionage and sabotage. On other hand he agrees with Foreign Minister’s view that chief encouragement is due to lack of effective action to prevent infiltration and sale of stolen property by Jordan officials, who he asserts see no threat to Jordan’s interests “from organized theft and harassment of Israel”. He replied to query by British Army Attachés to what UK should do, now that Jordan has invoked Anglo-Jordan treaty, by saying defense action against infiltration could solve problem.

Foreign Ministry informs Embassy that three infiltrators and one civilian returned to Israel by Jordan had been mistreated and beaten and all are hospitalized. Same source stated that Arabs in Taibe-Tira area of Israel have suffered sufficiently at hands of infiltrators to have requested IG to approve licenses for them to bear arms and have permission to post armed guards.

Embassy comment: It is believed that foregoing should be considered in light general summary contained in Embtel 1183⁷ and 1209,⁸ and that concerted effort be made to eliminate basic cause of present tension.

Davis

1. Repeated to London, Paris, Rome, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Ankara, Baghdad, and Jidda.
2. In telegram 1224 from Tel Aviv, Jan. 30, Ambassador Davis reported on a conversation with the British Ambassador on the subject of Israel’s relations with Jordan. (684A.85/1–3053)
3. In telegram 1226, Jan. 31, Davis reported that, upon receipt of telegram 726 (Document 552), he had conveyed to Sharett the information contained in that telegram. Sharett stated that he was leaving immediately to keep an appointment with the Prime Minister and would report to him fully the views of the United States as stated in the conversation with Davis. (684A.85/1–3153)
4. See footnote 2, Document 552.
5. Not printed.
6. Document 550.
7. Document 547.
8. Document 551.