149. Telegram From the Consulate General at Jerusalem to the Department of State1
6. General Burns has told me that Israel press stories of July 7 and 8 constitute good factual account of last two Gaza meetings. According Tekoah’s recent statements to press, which source such accounts, Egyptian and Israeli representatives agreed tentatively to certain proposals which comprise: (1) strict measures to prevent civilians crossing D/L; (2) provisions for return of persons crossing [Page 281] D/L; (3) only trained police or soldiers to man forward posts and conduct patrols.
Areas of disagreement (with Egypt taking negative stand) are said to have been as follows: (1) direct telephone communications between local commanders; (2) acknowledgment of an obligation to return stolen property carried across the D/L; (3) frequent meetings of local commanders; (4) exchange of information concerning punishment of persons attempting to cross the D/L illegally; (5) settlement of minor incidents by local commanders without resort to MAC procedures.
Gilroy,New York Times correspondent, has reported that Tekoah described meeting as “tough going.” He said that while Israel wants to reach agreement on best measures for reducing tensions on frontier Egypt is on guard against anything indicative of real cooperation. Tekoah expressed view that the Egyptian attitude is opposed to going beyond the present security arrangements. Egyptians thus sought to accomplish the minimum possible through the talks.
In commenting on foregoing press accounts, General Burns told me July 8 Gohar is certainly trying to reduce any commitments to a minimum. However, Gohar said to Burns July 6 “I hope you don’t find me deliberately obstructive now!”Burns added that Gohar evidently had instructions to be less difficult than at opening meetings, but that he is still very formalistic and pedantic in his approach, if not now “obstructive.”
Regarding settlement minor incidents outside MAC procedures, Gohar maintained that subcommittee of MAC already capable of handling such incidents.
With reference local commanders agreement, or “arrangements,”Burns explained that Gohar insists Major Sedki (Egyptian MAC representative) act as local commander for Egyptians, although the Officer with authority to take action is Brigadier Aghroudi, in command of military Gaza area.Burns said Sedki has no authority over troops and would not prove effective. On contrary he would merely have to refer all matters to the Brigadier. This subject is to be considered further next meeting. Meanwhile,Burns is trying work out compromise.Burns also seeking obtain compromise on question direct telephone communications between commanders which would involve using UNTSO observer as intermediary. Understand Egyptians would probably agree such expedient.
Burns said that while facts given out by Tekoah are substantially correct, he considered unwarranted impression conveyed by Tekoah that owing to Egyptian obstruction no satisfactory agreement can be reached on outstanding points in future discussions. . . .
To summarize,Burns added that Gohar has at least agreed in principle to his four points. Gohar remains afraid, however, of any [Page 282] measures which might prove unpopular with Egyptian military.Burns expressed view that he thought it would be well for powers to avoid any further pressures on Egypt with regard talks at least for time being. If, however, diplomatic representatives found opportunity to mention informally, for instance, the possible detriment to Gaza proceedings of controversial statements for the press, that might prove helpful. Also he had no objection if they could let it be known casually that he is still finding Gohar “a bit sticky.”Burns said that (in the light of Gonads evident aim to achieve a minimum of accomplishment) his own efforts to get something done doubtless made him appear “pro-Israeli” to the Egyptians. For that reason Burns exercised more restraint than usual in conducting most recent meetings.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/7–955. Confidential; Priority. Received at 10:13 a.m. Repeated priority to Cairo, Tel Aviv, Amman, London, Paris, Beirut, and Damascus. Passed to USUN.↩