128. Telegram From the Consulate General at Jerusalem to the Department of State1
360. Burns called at ConGen February 24 and showed me (together with British Consul General) copy telegram which he sent to UN SYG following his conversation with Sharett previous day (Contel 358 paragraph 22). Telegram states that main obstacle raised by Sharett to implementation UN SYG proposals of November 33 respecting El Auja D/Z was his effort to inject as condition thesis that Egypt should implement article 8, paragraph 3 GAA. As result this most recent meeting Burns concludes that Israel will continue obstruct and delay executing proposals which she had already accepted unconditionally.
Telegram states that question provision GAA just mentioned was revived by Israelis at this time by means lodging complaint with EIMAC about which he is reporting separately. Sharett maintained that investigation this complaint should take place prior to implementation UN SYG proposals. Sharett alluded to possibility implementing at the same time as proposals article 8 paragraph 3 GAA and apparently article 7 paragraph 34 as well. Sharett observed that, since Israel’s “unconditional acceptance” proposals, situation had been altered by concentration Egyptian forces in area and by press announcements to effect these forces now equipped with Czech arms.
According telegram Burns called Sharett’s attention to circumstance that while he invoking security of Israel as justification for not proceeding implement UN SYG proposals, Egypt similarly pleading security reasons as obliging them ignore provisions article 8, paragraph 3 GAA. Further, Egyptians hold that Israeli military occupation D/Z would continue in any case by reason retention there so-called Kibbutz and police force. Burns continued by observation to Sharett to effect he was not able contradict Egyptian contentions since Israelis do not allow UN observers to move freely [Page 238] in area of D/Z nor in zone provided by article 7, paragraph 45 of GAA.
Burns telegram then informs UN SYG that while Egyptian restrictions similarly preclude freedom movement observers in area defined by article 8 paragraph 3 he is asking GOE for such freedom in order permit implementation UN SYG first and second proposals, relative marking boundary and removal any Egyptian forces encroaching on D/Z. Burns closed conversation by leaving with Sharett detailed aide-mémoire reviewing history efforts obtain acceptance proposals. Sharett agreed study with view meeting with Burns again early next week.
Will telegraph Burns comments respecting above in next message.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/2–2456. Confidential. Received at 1:29 p.m., February 25. Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.↩
- Not printed. (Ibid., 674.84A/2–2356)↩
- For Hammarskjöld’s proposals, see telegrams 395 and 398, vol. XIV, pages 690 and 702.↩
- Article 7 (3) of the Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement (U.N. doc. S/ 1264/—Corr. 1 and Add. 1) stated, in essence, that, in the area defined as the western front under Egyptian control, Egypt could maintain “defensive forces only”, and that the Egyptians had to withdraw all other forces to the east of this front.↩
- Article 7 (4) of the Egypt-Israel General Armistice Agreement declared that, in the area defined as the western front under Israeli control, Israel could maintain “defensive forces only” which were to be based on the settlements, and that all other Israeli forces had to be withdrawn from this area.↩