78. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, May 7, 1959, 4:30 p.m.1
SUBJECT
- Water Development
PARTICIPANTS
- Mr. Abba Eban, Ambassador, Embassy of Israel
- Mr. Moshe Erell, Counselor, Embassy of Israel
- NEA—William M. Rountree
- NE—William L. Hamilton
In handing Ambassador Eban the Department’s note, dated May 7,2 in reply to a note from the Israel Government of January 28, 1959,3 which asked United States assistance in Israel’s proposed Jordan Water Development projects, Mr. Rountree made the following points orally:
- (1)
- The United States had studied the Israel request sympathetically, consistent with our belief that the Jordan River is an important natural asset which should be developed for maximum benefit to all the people of the area.
- (2)
- Accordingly, our note expresses sympathetic interest in the Israel proposal regarding conveyance of water from Tiberias to the Beit Shean region. We believe this project may well be analogous in many respects to the East Ghor project with which we are assisting Jordan on the other side of the river.
- (3)
- However, the larger project, described as “stage one” proposing to move large quantities of water from Lake Tiberias over the mountains to Israel’s coastal plain, presents difficulties. In our view it would adversely affect the other riparians unless undertaken in the context of an agreed, unified development in which affirmative Israel performance would be offered in a number of respects including storage of water in Tiberias and rights of way for conduits. There would also be the question of the salinity of the water remaining in the Tiberias–Jordan channel for downstream uses if Israel were to take this quantity of fresh water out of the system without provision for replenishment.
- (4)
- We are preparing to explore these questions at greater length. We continue to hope that new opportunities for international agreement will present themselves.
- (5)
- Secretary Herter wished Mr. Rountree to acknowledge the Ambassador’s letter of May 44 which contained assurances that the “stage one” project would not represent an expensive modification of the unified concept. We are glad to have this information on record although it does not seem directly applicable to the considerations on which the United States reply is based.
Ambassador Eban said he could not comment comprehensively until he had advice from his Government’s experts on the questions raised by the United States note. Israel had presented its proposals, he said, with the conviction that projects suggested could be undertaken without adversely affecting subsequent agreement or the interests of other riparians.
He was not sure that international agreement was any the less elusive today than when the Johnston negotiations broke down. He is aware that the Arabs talk in more reasonable tones privately. It is quite [Page 174] possible that agreement could be reached once more on the technical level. When it came to a political agreement, however, he was very much afraid the attempt would fail just as it failed before.
Israel could not contemplate the possibility of additional years of complete paralysis of its development hopes. His Government felt that the only acceptable alternative is to start projects now that can some day fit into an agreed plan, if such is ever achieved.