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

684A.85/2–2053: Telegram

No. 573
The Ambassador in Israel (Davis) to the Department of State

confidential
priority

Tel Aviv, February 20, 1953—9 p.m.

1348. Deptel 770,¹ Embtel 1318,² Embassy despatch 761 February 16.³ Prime Minister Ben Gurion invited me to meet with him, Foreign Minister Sharett, Kollek and Bendor yesterday afternoon to discuss US–Israel relations in general and representations made pursuant to Deptel 770 in particular. Although Prime Minister showed some of subjectivity mentioned in section one Embtel 1265 in discussing Embassy’s aide-mémoire re reprisals, it was obvious he took representations very seriously and is anxious avoid injuring relations with the United States and other Western powers.

Prime Minister commenced discussion with expression of hope US policy of 5 years of support for Israel should be continued and expanded. He stated he would be the first to recognize that without help of American Jewry and US Government, Israel could not survive; and that he realized also that free peoples of world must help themselves and that they should not “create difficulties”. Commenting on importance of regional peace to Israel and Western powers, he expressed hope that US could improve situation by lending support of its influence and prestige. He saw no reason, however, to delay preparations for defense until regional peace is achieved, saying he thought it none too early to prepare for an emergency. He said Israel would be in position to mobilize considerable armed force and provide important strategic facilities. He dilated on this subject in some detail saying Israel could train force of some 200,000 to 250,000; and could be important as center of communications, supply, repairs, etc.

He commented on how little progress Israel has made in getting military aid, and made plea for early consideration of his request, stressing willingness to cooperate. He said in event war comes there is no assurance most of countries in Middle East would not attempt to remain neutral, and expressed opinion US would be obliged defend Middle East in any case. He mentioned three possibilities in order of their desirability:

(1) To achieve area peace, presumably through Egypt, bringing whole including Israel into regional defense plans;

(2) If area peace cannot be achieved in time, make arrangements separately with all willing to cooperate, in which connection he confirmed prior assurances Israel would cooperate on such basis, and

(3) Make arrangements defend area even though some Arab countries refuse to cooperate on either basis, in which event Western powers would have to depend principally on Turkey and Israel.

As to Embassy’s aide-mémoire of February 16 based on Deptel 770, Prime Minister stated he would be less than frank if he did not say he had been “a little astonished and hurt by some of the statements and the general tone”. On other hand he was gratified at evidence US realization its position of world leadership and did not resent its frank criticism when based on facts. He agreed that friction with neighboring countries should be avoided and that infiltration and countermeasures are not purely local matters. He took exception to implication of mutual guilt with regard to infiltration saying that it is Jordanians who enter Israel to loot, rather than vice versa.

While conceding impossibility stop border incidents entirely, he says it has been demonstrated infiltration on large scale can be prevented. Shishikli, he said, had reduced border depredations to a minimum and he is convinced infiltration problem with Jordan can be controlled if Jordan Government and Arab Legion seriously wish to achieve this result. He felt it was not fair, moreover, to excuse the Jordan Government of responsibility in connection with the railway explosion saying “to mine a railway required planning and whether committed by regulars or irregulars makes little difference to Israel”.

As to all-important question of reprisals, the Prime Minister said that he knew they make trouble for his government and for the friends of Israel, and that he would like to have advice as to how lives and property could be protected, saying “I confess I do not know how we can do it without fighting back”. He urged that we look back in our own history to times when frontier settlements were exposed to raids and that we consider what it would mean to us if we were subjected to proportional killing and looting. He added “we cannot give our people the feeling that they are not being protected. Believe me, I am as strong for peace with the Arabs as you are, since for us it is vital, but until there is peace we must protect our people”. In course conversation, I reviewed our attitude toward reprisals saying present representations are result series of events which are regarded as unnecessary and extremely harmful to interest of Israel as well as US. Specific mention was made of the El Hamma bombing in 1951, the Beit Jala and other acts of reprisal in 1952, the “barrel incident” and the recent attacks on Jordan villages.

While Prime Minister who determines Israel Government policy, still believes reprisals might in certain circumstances, “be only effective means of self-defense”, Embassy believes he is sincere in wishing to avoid them. Ultimate effectiveness of representations will depend it is believed on extent to which both parties take seriously US interest in easing tension and make real effort control situation.

Davis

1. Printed as telegram 625 to Amman, Document 567.
2. Document 569.
3. Not printed, but see footnote 4, ibid.