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

683.84A322/9–1053: Telegram

No. 661
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State¹

secret
priority

Tel Aviv, September 10, 1953—9 p.m.

309. Embassy discussed this morning in Tel Aviv with Joseph Tekoah, assistant legal adviser to Foreign Ministry, developments referred to in Deptel 195,² Embtel 305³ and Jerusalem Telegram 33⁴ to Department. Tekoah made following points:

(1) Present construction is additional stage in work that has been going on in connection with Huleh project for last few years;

(2) It will not affect volume of water in river or utilization of that water by Israelis or Arabs presently using it;

(3) It is not the beginning of those aspects of larger Lowdermilk project discussed with Syrians in latter stage of Israel-Syrian negotiations but is limited project which can be [but] need not necessarily be linked after its completion in two to three years with basic Lowdermilk system;

(4) If linked at that time, would not affect present water supply from Jordan River to Arab lands on east bank of Jordan above Tiberias;

(5) No work has begun on larger water projects discussed with Syrians which Israelis consider still on agenda when negotiations with Syria resumed;

(6) Tillitson made no objection when informed of construction plans on day it commenced (September 2) and given guarantee it would not involve construction on Arab-owned land or affect present water supply to Arab lands;

(7) Tillitson after discussion with Shalev September 7 did not deliver letter requesting Israel stop damming Jordan River (Jerusalem 33 to Department);

(8) Israel did not stop construction of dike as requested in Bennike letter September 8, on ground that request made on basis incorrect assumptions that island was Arab-owned and would be flooded as consequence this damming. Tekoah stated island was seasonal, appearing in summer and regularly inundated in winter, and was to best of IG knowledge not Arab-owned;

(9) Question of discontinuing work not raised by Bennike at September 9 meeting between him, Vigier, Dayan and Shalev after situation explained to him and therefore Israel intends continuing with work;

(10) Emphasis of Bennike and Vigier after this explanation and assurances mentioned point 6 above was on desirability resumption Israel-Syrian talks to which main obstacle was Israel refusal pay compensation for brush fire started by Kibbutz Gonen in May;

(11) Israel representatives at that meeting agreed to Bennike–Virgier request that IG pay compensation and renew negotiations with Syria;

(12) Bennike stated at meeting that it would be advisable receive in writing some of assurances from Israel mentioned above but suggested this be postponed until he had had opportunity speak to Syrian representatives;

(13) IG understood that questions thus far raised had not been raised in response formal Syrian complaint but as result concern of United Nations over possibility infringements Arab rights.

Possibility must be considered, although on basis present evidence it is by no means clearly established, that (1) IG may have had knowledge of results of TVA study and of serious consideration USG giving to proposals based upon it; (2) IG opposed to plan and determined take measures to forestall its adoption and implementation; (3) present construction suddenly undertaken in belief that (a) it would drive Arab states into intransigent opposition to any Jordan water development plan, and (b) nevertheless, IG could muster case that it was within its rights. IG’s case stronger in its legalism (at points questionable, e.g., Tekoah’s first point) than in evidence it gives of desire to cooperate with UN. All evidence which Embassy has been able to obtain indicates that construction undertaken on extremely short notice (shortly after preparation of recommendations based on TVA report) and contrary to expressed expectations of those in IG who have been working most intensively on water development matters. Tekoah when told by Embassy representative that decision to commence construction seems to have been made on short notice, replied he knew nothing of that part of problem (although he is official in Foreign Ministry who has been intimately acquainted with water development problems for past few years and had prepared himself to brief Embassy on present developments after Embassy approached Foreign Ministry). US Army Attaché has twice requested Foreign Liaison Office of Israel Defense Forces for clarification military aspects of Huleh construction situation but met first with evasion and secondly with statement it was matter for Foreign Ministry.

Embassy agrees in necessity (Deptel 195) of withholding of aid if IG insists on taking action detrimental to plans for solution regional problems (see final paragraph Embassy Despatch 212, August 20, 1953).⁵ Such actions should, of course, be taken only where IG’s culpability can be demonstrated to US and world public. In Embassy’s opinion there is no objection to delaying current release of aid for brief period pending clarification which may be shortly forthcoming (Jerusalem Telegram 34 to Department). Until then, Embassy believes not desirable give any indication that we are deliberately delaying or reason therefor.

Russell

1. Repeated priority to Damascus and Jerusalem.
2. Document 658.
3. Dated Sept. 8, not printed; it reported on the visit on Sept. 6 by the TCA water resources adviser to the site of the Israeli diversion of the Jordan River. (884.2614/9–853)
4. Not printed, but see footnote 2, Document 658.
5. Not printed.