I hope you can find time to read the attached paper on “Trends in Israel
Policy”. I believe this staff paper represents an accurate analysis of
the situation. It is interesting to note that the reporting from Israel
itself is in balance with the reporting from the Arab states and that
both lead to the conclusions in this paper.
I told you this morning there are reports that the Zionists in London
were attempting to prevent a UK-Egyptian agreement. If this can be
verified it would further support the conclusions of the attached
paper.
[Attachment]
Paper Prepared in the Bureau of Near Eastern,
South Asian, and African Affairs
secret
[Washington, undated.]
Trends In Israel Policy Toward The
Arabs
Discussion
Israel publicly insists that her policy is based on a “vision of
peace of the Prophets of Israel” and she castigates the Arabs for
adamant refusal to negotiate peace. Despite her deeds, which have
been such as to preclude a reasonable settlement, Israel has made
considerable progress in the propaganda battle to convince the
American public of the justice of her case.
Arab unreasonableness is well advertised. Matters in which Israel may
be considered at fault are as follows:
- (1)
- Ambassador Eban
recently laid blame on Syria for the breakdown of
discussions from November 1952 to May 1953 in the Mixed
Armistice Commission on elimination of the Demilitarized
Zones. Actually, they failed over Israel’s demand for
complete control of the Jordan River. Regarding these talks,
the chief Israel delegate cynically asserted: “We are doing
it only to please the Americans” as nothing much can be
settled. (Jerusalem’s 81, October 21, 1953)2
- (2)
- Informal agreement reached in Jordan-Israel talks in
August, 1953 through the Mixed Armistice Commission to
effect frontier rectifications by reciprocal exchanges to
territory was blocked by last minute Israel demands for two
additional hills. (Jerusalem’s 29, September 2, 1953; 81,
October 21, 953; and 86, October 29, 1953)
- (3)
Sudden series of border incidents perpetrated by
Israel: August 28, 20 Arab refugees killed in the
Egyptian occupied Gaza zone; during September Arab
bedouins and flocks shot by armed forces in the El Auja
Demilitarized Zone; and on the night of October 14/15,
attack against the Jordanian village of Qibya. These
incidents followed a relatively quiet period. All have
been condemned by the Mixed Armistice Commission.
General Bennike’s report to the Security Council on
the border situation makes clear Israel’s reliance on
the “old law of talon”.
Information received by the Embassy at Tel Aviv and the
Consulate General at Jerusalem indicates that the Qibya
attack may have been a deliberate Israel effort to
provoke an engagement with the
[Page 1408]
Arab legion. (Tel Aviv’s 469,
October 17, 1953, Jerusalem’s 81, October 21,
1953)
- (4)
- Arrogant and obstructive Israel attitude towards the
United Nations Truce Supervision Organization. Failure to
heed General Bennike’s letter on Banat Ya’qub construction;
refusal to cooperate in General Bennike’s inspection of Mount Scopus; threat
to fire on chairman of Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice
Commission.
- (5)
The Banat Ya’qub water diversion project was undertaken
suddenly, was accelerated after General Bennike’s decision,
and does not fit into previously discussed Israel
development plans for the current fiscal year. Reports
from the field have speculated that it was an Israel
attempt to create a situation in which the Arabs would
be forced to reject the Tennessee Valley Authority desk
study. (Tel Aviv’s 557, October 31, 1953) The Israel
actions have tended to nullify the Johnston mission.
Despite Sharett’s
promise to consider the Tennessee Valley Authority
study, it was vigorously attacked and rejected by
Minister without portfolio Lavon on October 31, who described it as
“designed to stunt our growth”. In the same speech,
Lavon asserted
that the resumption of United States aid to Israel was
due to pressure of American domestic politics. (Tel
Aviv’s 569, November 3, 1953) The general reaction of
Israel’s press has been critical and emotional,
contending the plan would interfere with Israel’s own
ideas.
The water resources and development adviser to the United
States Operations Mission at Tel Aviv states that the
Israel master plan for irrigation will practically
eliminate the inflow of water into Lake Tiberias. The
salt content of Lake Tiberias will then become so great
as to make it unfit for irrigation. He reports that the
Israel water resources people “assume that the full
right of all the flow entering Lake Tiberias is theirs
and also, since they are now using approximately one
third of the Yarmuk summer flow, they feel as though a
portion of that river’s flow belongs to Israel.” (Tel
Aviv’s despatch 366, October 6, 1953)
- (6)
- Recent pronouncements by Israel leaders appear
deliberately provocative to the Arabs. In his talk on
October 20 regarding the Qibya incident, Ben Gurion stated: “All the
responsibility rests on the Jordan Government which for
years has tolerated and thereby encouraged acts of murder
and pillage against the inhabitants of Israel.” On October
25, before the Jerusalem Economic Conference, he dwelt on
such themes as readiness to accept two million additional
immigrants and re-affirmation of Jerusalem as the Israeli
capital, which has provoked strong condemnation from the
Arab press.
[Page 1409]
Conclusion
An assessment of Israel’s deeds, as distinct from her declarations of
intent, leads to the conclusion that her policy is either to: (1)
coerce the Arabs into “peace” on Israel’s terms (which is an
impossibility); or (2) prevent the restoration of stability in the
belief that the present unsettled situation in the Near East is in
Israel’s best interest. Possible reasons for this second objective
would be: serve as an excuse for failure to achieve a permanent
solution to economic problems; prevent alterations in the military
balance by making it difficult for the Western Powers to provide
arms to the Arabs; future expansionist plans.
In either case, Israel policy has served to counter United States
endeavors to stabilize conditions in the area. Believing implicitly
in the justice of their own cause, the Israelis appear unable to
show the realism required for a successful adjustment into the Near
Eastern environment. In the early days of the state, an almost
mystical belief in the Zionist ability to perform “miracles” made
the impossible appear readily obtainable. Failure of the
expectations aroused, has intensified Israel’s latent feeling of
frustration and insecurity and induced resort to the heedless and
provocative acts recently undertaken. These factors make Israel’s
unpredictable and uncontrollable dynamism, rather than the static
negativism of the Arab states, the major present source of danger in
the Near East.
The following are sample recent telegrams bearing on Israel’s
attitudes:
[Here follows a list of eight documents: The six telegrams and one
despatch referred to in the body of the paper, and telegram 213 from
Amman, Document 723.]
