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

683.84A/3–2553: Telegram

No. 588
The Ambassador in Syria (Moose) to the Department of State¹

secret

Damascus, March 25, 1953—4 p.m.

611. Pursuant Deptel 535, March 21 I saw Shishikli March 24 and made points outlined last paragraph reftel. I expressed hope he would continue display leadership in eliminating points of friction with Israel. Shishikli summarized situation as follows:

1. He declared that Syria was first Arab country to endeavor remove troublesome points friction with Israel and said if Syrian goodwill reciprocated there is no question of failure in present negotiations. He had been encouraged by progress made in ISMAC meetings to establish new demarcation line. He asserted parties had agreed compensation in either lands or cash should be made 6 dispossessed Arabs whether or not they left during or since hostilities. In March 16 meeting however Israel withdrew its agreement compensate such Arabs no longer living zone. Shishikli stated he could not sacrifice rights of Arabs who owned property in demilitarized zone (Embtels 550 and 551, February 11)² and if Israel did not recognize these rights negotiations might reach impasse. Shishikli termed Israeli “about-face” on property rights of Arabs device to prevent agreement prior departure Colonel Taxis. He suggested I confirm Israeli reversal attitude from Vigier or Taxis. Comment: Many Arabs have either left or been forced out of zones by Israeli policies, mainly in central and southern zones. Others including important Damascus families are absentee owners of lands west of Jordan.

2. Shishikli asserted task of ISMAC in current discussions is to agree upon provisional demarcation line, without prejudice to existing water rights. Final agreement on water rights must await permanent settlement. This confirms his position set forth in enclosure to Embdes 279, November 6, 1952.³ However he stated Syria could hardly permit Baniyas and Hasbaya waters continue flow freely into Jordan if Israel were meanwhile to carry out unilaterally developments calculated to buttress Israeli claim to larger share of Jordan waters than it now utilizes.

3. Shishikli impressed me as being sincerely desirous reach settlement and disappointed at Israeli attitude. It is obvious some confusion exists between Shishikli understanding of present status of negotiations and those of Israeli and probably even his Syrian negotiators. Embassy hopes any differences may be cleared up in meeting tomorrow between Shishikli, Vigier, and Taxis.

Moose

1. Repeated to Tel Aviv, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, Jidda, London, Moscow, Paris, and Jerusalem.
2. Neither printed.
3. See footnote 4, Document 509. The enclosure to despatch 279 from Damascus, Nov. 6, was a memorandum detailing that portion of a conversation of Nov. 3 between Moose and Shishikli relating to a possible division of the Syro-Israeli demilitarized zone between the two countries. (683.84A/11–652) The conversation is summarized in telegram 345 from Damascus, Document 509.