Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Arab-Israeli Dispute, January 1–July 26, 1956, Volume XV

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

Jerusalem, May 8, 1956—noon.

441. General Burns, who returned from Rome May 5, called at Consulate General May 7 and gave me outline of UNSYG consultations with Israel and Arab States summarized in following numbered paragraphs.

Burns prefaced his remarks by stating that “Hammarskjold had avoided diplomats like the plague” while here and that his report to SC, which should soon be available, would doubtless go beyond scope of details on some points he felt free to give me now.

(1) Egypt.

(A) Egypt and Israel had given UNSYG assurances they would observe cease-fire. Egypt also gave undertaking prevent civilians cross D/L as this point apparently not clearly covered by Article II, paragraph 2, or Article V, paragraph 4 GAA. Parties agreed on certain provisions looking toward establishment through agreement in EIMAC of an adequate number of UN observer posts both sides Gaza D/L with view ensuring compliance Article II, paragraph 2 GAA. Terms of this agreement as correctly given in GOI release published in Israeli press May 2. These provide for agreed and equal number of posts each side D/L, for freedom access to these posts by observers, and for right observer patrols move along D/L between posts “when required”. Officers of each party to GAA have right accompany observers, will arrange for their passage to and between posts, and will designate a route which observers will follow in doing so. Moreover, accord covers only “limited period” ending October 3, 1956. Despite obvious opportunities for obstruction inherent in above undertaking Burns hopeful it will prove useful. He said Israelis told him they insisted on limiting period its validity in order “preserve their sovereignty” in area.

(B) Although EIMAC has not met for over three months Burns expects see Gohar at kilo 95 May 8 in effort overcome Egyptian obstructions MAC meetings. Egyptians have in effect boycotted MAC as protest against Israeli forces occupying El Auja D/Z. Evidently basing their argument on portion Article X, paragraph 2 GAA, stating “MAC shall maintain its headquarters at El Auja …”² Egyptian hold foregoing entitles them proceed MAC headquarters by any route, while Israelis will not allow Egyptian delegate proceed El Auja by Ismailia road (ConGentel 373³). Although MAC meetings formerly held at kilo 95, few meters within Egyptian controlled territory, pursuant attitude just mentioned Egyptians have more recently refused permit meetings there on alleged “security grounds”. Despite foregoing history Burns fairly hopeful he can get parties off dead center through resumption MAC meetings to implement agreement in (A) above.

(C) Burns added that following Gaza incidents early April Ben Gurion gave him oral assurance Israeli patrols would be more circumspect near D/L, indicating patrols would be kept back from immediate vicinity border as a general rule. They would approach border only when necessary cope with infiltration, violations on the part of Egyptian forces, or to protect settlers harvesting crops. Burns believes Israelis observing this commitment.

(D) With regard El Auja D/Z and UNSYG proposals of November 3,⁴ Burns said Israelis linked observance Articles VII and VIII of GAA with question Egyptian compliance Article I. In Israeli view Article I includes right freedom passage Suez Canal, as well as cessation hostile statements on part Egyptian officials. Lacking improvement these points Israel has maintained they were unwilling consider compliance with Articles VII and VIII. Hammarskjold pointed out that question Suez Canal was not directly related to GAA but rather was matter for Security Council consideration. Burns stated that Egyptians had shown some indication making further concessions but had lost interest when it became apparent Israel would not give assurances against resumption digging at Banat Yacub.

(2) Syria.

(A) UNSYG obtained “cease-fire” commitment from Syria which is not conditional on Israel giving undertaking refrain work at Banat Yacub. While Syrians asked that UNSYG obtain such an assurance from Israelis in form of statement to effect “Israel bound by resolutions of Security Council,” UNSYG did not succeed in doing so.

(B) For prestige reasons Syrian publicity media have endeavored create impression Syria’s agreement cease-fire is conditional on Israeli undertaking refrain from work in D/Z.

(C) With regard Lake Tiberias matters progress was made toward acceptance terms Security Council resolution January 19.⁵ Israelis agreed refrain interference with Syrians watering cattle in lake and agreed keep police boats from patrolling within 250 meters eastern shore, with reservation covering certain cases necessity. Syrians agreed stop their nationals from fishing in lake pending establishment system of fishing permits. No agreement was reached about latter since Israelis insisted they issue permits while Syria wants them issued by MAC chairman. In Burns’ view chairman should not become involved this matter which ultra vires.

(D) With regard UNTSO functions, Israel refused assent to suggestion that observer post be established at Moussadiye on Syrian side Lake Tiberias and on high ground behind Capernaum, and that observers operate boat on lake.

(3) Jordan.

(A) Jordan agreed unconditional cease-fire with Israel, adding some comment about observance Security Council resolutions. Respecting proposed local commanders agreements both Israel and Jordan expressed generally favorable attitude. Israel softened former attitude against allowing observers attend meetings of local commanders through accepting principle that observer might be present if neither side objected. Jordanians maintained observer should be present if either side wished to have him. Details remain to be worked out.

(B) Burns said Hammarskjold will report no progress made respecting matters envisaged Article VIII GAA, which remain in status quo.

(4) Lebanon.

Lebanon agreed to unconditional cease-fire including appeal all concerned respect Security Council resolutions.

Comment: Burns said he considered UNSYG visit had been very helpful, especially in view critical situation early April. In his opinion USNYG had been successful in calming the dangerous situation which had developed at that time. Burns expressed himself as cautiously optimistic with respect implementing provisions on which parties have expressed agreement. With any luck he looks forward to at least a limited period of relative quiet on borders.

Cole

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 684A.86/5–856. Confidential. Received at 2:29 p.m. Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.
2. Ellipsis in the source text. Article 10 (2) of the Egypt—Israel General Armistice Agreement (U.N. doc. S/1264–Corr. 1 and Add. 1) reads: “The Mixed Armistice Commission shall maintain its headquarters at El Auja, and shall hold its meetings at such places and at such times as it may deem necessary for the effective conduct of its work.”
3. Not printed. (Department of State, Central Files, 683.84A/3–956)
4. See telegrams 395 and 398, vol. XIV pp. 690 and 702.
5. See the editorial note, Ibid., p. 854.