Office of the Historian

473. Telegram From the Consulate General at Jerusalem to the Department of State1

Jerusalem,December 30, 1955—5 p.m.

219. Re Contel 217.2 General Burns gave me following comments today recent developments Israeli-Egyptian affairs:

He considers Israeli communiqué December 273 possibly as warning signal of some kind, but does not take it too seriously for time being since earlier press statements paving way for Israeli “retaliation” attacks have been followed by action almost immediately. In any event communiqué could prepare public opinion for some eventual further moves, which presumably unpredictable in view Ben Gurion’s … apparent domination Israeli political scene. Communiqué might, on other hand, serve primary purpose of justifying retention Israeli forces in EL Auja D/Z and closing door on efforts negotiate their removal. . . .

Burns saw Eytan December 29 but discussion rather futile. Eytan insisted that GOI has accepted “unconditionally”UNSYG proposals for EL Auja although acceptance in fact always predicated on prior acceptance by GOE of “cease-fire” and implementation Article VIII paragraph 3GAA4 (Contel 1805).Burns suggestion that Eytan write him a letter confirming Israel’s “unconditional acceptance” terminated discussion this topic.Burns said that in view Israelis reiterated complaints about alleged Egyptian firing across Gaza D/L he urged again upon Eytan advisability discontinuing motor patrols few meters from armistice line. He told Eytan he would like discuss this and other matters with Ben Gurion, but has not seen latter recently.

Referring his meeting with Gohar December 28,Burns said Gohar seemed more affable than formerly but had nothing very fundamental to say. Gohar stated that Egyptian position UNSYG proposals unchanged. Egyptians not willing consider the matter further until after SC had concluded consideration Israeli aggression [Page 894] Lake Tiberias. They might modify their position on proposals later on. Meanwhile, they regarded subject as still open, since UNSYG had not set time limit.

Burns said UNSYG proposals have served purpose of giving him some concrete points to keep before parties, but he regards their usefulness as probably now slight. He expressed idea that it might be better for UNTSO to return to more broadly based theme of implementation provisions GAA itself including freedom movement observers.

Cole
  1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/12–3055. Confidential. Received at 8:53 a.m., December 31. Repeated to Amman, Cairo, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.↩
  2. Dated December 29; it reported a conversation with UNTSO political adviser Lucas. (Ibid., 674.84A/12–2955)↩
  3. A Foreign Ministry press release of that date recounted from Israel’s perspective the D/Z negotiations which had initiated with Hammarskjöld’s November 3 suggestions. Telegram 650 from Tel Aviv, December 28, reported that the Foreign Ministry had told the Embassy that the purpose of the release was “to apprise Israel public of GOI’s unconditional acceptance of Secretary General’s proposals by contrast with Egypt’s persistent refusal.” (Ibid., 674.84A/12–2855)↩
  4. See Documents 376 and 382.↩
  5. Document 439.↩