120.280/10–2953: Telegram
No. 715
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State1
priority
545. Embtel 538 to Department.2 Second meeting held at home Foreign Minister in Tel Aviv this morning. Present: Foreign Minister, Minister Finance, Minister Commerce plus Israeli water and agriculture technicians. Russell and Johnston were accompanied by Jones, Barnes, Bergus, Fried, McDaniel and several others USOAI.
Foreign Minister opened meeting by reiterating his understanding that Israel was uncommitted to give clear decision at this time. Johnston confirmed this.
Israel technicians then made lengthy statements on technical aspects of plan. Main criticisms were (1) idea of basin development contained in TVA report too dogmatic—Litani should be included; (2) not always true that gravity flow more economic than pumping; (3) there might be other alternatives to Tiberias as reservoir; (4) Israel’s experience showed that southern portion Jordan valley could be irrigated with much less water than TVA report recommends.
Jones replied with able engineering counter arguments pointing up competent judgment behind recommendations of TVA report.
Johnston pointed out US was not wedded to each and every conclusion TVA report. Realized there was additional data available to Israelis on matter which we would be glad to study. We were convinced of soundness of principles behind TVA document, however, and believed acceptances those principles would represent important [Page 1395] beginning of solution of other problems including the urgent one or refugees. Pointed out Israel’s own political and economic interest in solution refugee problem and raising Arab standard of living. Sharett agreed IG was interested in solving refugee problem and in raising Near East living standards. Stated however there was further but prior premise that Israel must solve own problem production and put more people on land. Israel still only potential refuge for unhappy Jews of several areas including Morocco. He believed three premises could be reconciled.
Sharett asked Johnston to convey to President United States the IG view that USG would miss important opportunity if it did not tie in Litani with present plan. IG did not make this sine qua non of cooperation but gave it great weight. Johnston threw as much cold water as he could on this proposal pointing out we would be most fortunate if we were able to reach an understanding on Jordan watershed without going to another watershed. It was most premature from both political and technical viewpoints to give serious consideration to Litani at this time.
Johnston added that United States had most carefully diagnosed the situation and concluded Litani not part of present problem. They would have to respect our judgment on that point.
Foreign Minister concluded by stating there was basic identity of views between IG and US. Certain points for further discussion included (1) total scope of project; (2) certain individual features; (3) type of control authority. As sovereign state Israel would continue certain development works in own territory. (Confirmed “temporary” stoppage of work in demilitarized zone.) While not formally committing IG not to undertake work which would run counter to plan, Sharett said, reality was that all construction planned for the present is consistent with TVA plan.
At Johnston’s request Foreign Minister agreed that IG would publish nothing other than its decision to keep open mind and carefully study TVA report and thus obviate possibility devaluing proposals in Arab mind by premature though possibly only partial endorsement.
Comment: General opinion Johnston others present was that results more favorable than expected. The general proposals for technical modifications advanced by IG were not outside realm of feasibility.
- Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Cairo, and Damascus.↩
- Document 712.↩