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

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

Jerusalem, May 23, 1956—11 a.m.

453. General Burns has postponed his departure for New York owing difficulties obtaining adoption arrangement covering UNTSO observation posts each side of Gaza D/L. According Burns, position as described Contel 450² has however evolved to some extent. It is now substantially as follows:

(1) Gohar has sent Burns letter stating that Egypt willing consider arrangement as in effect without its being “formally adopted in MAC”.

(2) While maintaining their position that MAC should not meet at El Auja now that “articles VII and VIII of GAA are in suspense” Israelis have agreed to one meeting at El Auja for purpose formally adopting arrangement, provided MAC representatives agree in advance adopt resolution to effect that pending compliance by the parties with articles VII and VIII subsequent meetings of MAC will be held elsewhere. If Egyptians agree foregoing Israelis have indicated they will allow Egyptian MAC delegate proceed El Auja by any road he wishes.

(3) Burns expects reply about May 24 from Egyptians as to whether they are willing have their MAC delegate attend meeting at El Auja in circumstances just mentioned. He would proceed New York thereafter.

(4) Hammarskjold takes “dim view” of Israelis idea of holding MAC meeting only on condition of prior commitment as above. If Egyptians unwilling give such commitment Hammarskjold would consider Israelis responsible for obstructing adoption arrangement.

With respect Israeli motives for taking above position, Burns said he assumed Israelis do not consider it advisable at this time to block progress entirely on adoption arrangement establishing observation posts, especially in light publicity attaching UNSYG visit and SC meeting. However, they presumably still wish limit activities observers as much as they can and take any expedient steps maintain habitual thesis re their “sovereignty” in the D/Z.

They also continue relate compliance articles VII and VIII to Egyptian attitude toward article I of GAA, including freedom transit Suez. In this connection Israelis likewise have in mind Egyptian actions such as increase number military units in Sinai and anti-Israeli propaganda.

With respect Gaza D/L which now relatively quiet, Burns opined that Egyptians are making genuine effort control troops and avoid firing incidents, while Israelis likewise keeping patrols back from immediate vicinity D/L. Situation indicative of what parties can achieve in this direction when they wish.

Turning to other matters, Burns said he thought suggestions for improving Lake Tiberias situation (SC resolution January 19, 1956³) are all being observed by parties at this time with exception permission Syrians fish in Lake, which remains as described Contel 441.⁴ With regard Jordan–Israel local commanders agreements covering border outside Jerusalem area, Burns said both sides considering proposals for agreement in terms generally similar that of June 8, 1953,⁵ which lapsed following Scorpion Pass bus incident. Israelis had just returned proposed draft agreement with their comments, but progress on Jordan side might be delayed by change of government. Burns hopes new agreement will provide that both low level officers near frontiers and high level commanders of military districts concerned should have direct means communication with opposite numbers.

Burns said his opinion was that Jerusalem area commanders arrangement had proven of limited significance at least partly owing to fact Jordanians had named chief of Jerusalem police force as “area commander” for purposes of the arrangement. They did not name officer in charge military area, who would be logical choice since he commands Arab Legion troops in Jerusalem, because when arrangement concluded that post was occupied by British brigadier. Jordanians did not wish British officer have direct contacts with Israeli opposite number. As result “area commander” on Jordan side was in fact police officer with but little force of character and no control troops in Jerusalem. Burns hopeful that with departure British from Arab Legion, Jordanians will feel free give their ranking military officers proper role any such local arrangements in future.⁶

Cole

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/5–2356. Confidential. Received at 1:24 p.m. Repeated to Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv.
2. Document 355.
3. See the editorial note, vol. XIV, p. 854.
4. Document 339.
5. A Local Commanders’ Agreement between Jordan and Israel under the auspices of the Jordan–Israel Mixed Armistice Commission was reinstituted on June 8, 1953.
6. On May 25, Cole reported the following:“Burns told me at social gathering last night Israelis have agreed implement arrangement UNTSO observation posts along Gaza D/L without its formal adoption in MAC (Contel 453). Plans contemplate establishment 6 posts each side D/L. Burns proceeding New York May 25.” (Telegram 457 from Jerusalem; Department of State, Central Files, 674.84A/5–2556)