Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Arab-Israeli Dispute; United Arab Republic; North Africa, Volume XIII

85. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs (Jones) to the Acting Secretary of State¹

Washington, July 23, 1959.

SUBJECT

• Your Appointment with Mr. Herzog, Israel Chargé d’Affaires

Mr. Herzog, Israel Chargé d’Affaires, and Mr. Manor, Israel Economic Minister, are calling on you July 23, 1959 at 4:00 p.m. The Embassy has indicated that Mr. Herzog wishes to discuss with you Israel’s aid requirements in FY 1960 with particular attention to his Government’s request for assistance in its water resources development program. Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Roberts of NE will attend.

Background:

In April 1958, following the announced decision of the United States Government to assist the Kingdom of Jordan in the development of the Yarmouk River, the Government of Israel presented a note to the Department seeking to establish that because the United States was helping Jordan, it was morally obligated to aid Israel in its project for Jordan River development (Tab A).² This thesis was not accepted by the Department. We told the Israelis that our attitude toward sound projects in developing water resources in Israel, which lie within the Armistice lines and which do not conflict with the coordinated development of the Jordan system (Eric Johnston’s plan) and established international obligations, would be determined in the light of the nature of the projects themselves, of Israel’s need for assistance in connection with them, and of the availability of funds (Tab B).³

In January, 1959, the Israel Embassy presented a note to the Department, outlining Israel’s water development program and stating that the Government of Israel intended to complete stage one of the project during the next four years (Tab C).⁴ This first stage would include the diversion of 150 to 180 metric cubic meters of water annually from Lake Tiberias to the coastal plain and the southern part of the country. It would also include a smaller project involving the construction of a canal from Lake Tiberias to Beit Shean. The note expressed the hope that the United States would assist in the implementation of this program in order that water resources now being wasted might contribute to the progress of Israel’s economy.

Our reply dated May 7, 1959, (a) found difficulties with the proposal to move water outside the Jordan basin because with its planned projections this project was of a character and magnitude to put Israel on the way toward obtaining her maximum expectations from the Jordan river system without being required to give any reciprocal concessions to other riparians; (b) referred to the fact that certain elements of the proposal were not feasible without prior international agreement; (c) noted that the salinity of Lake Tiberias and the lower Jordan would be significantly increased; and (d) expressed the view that the project to convey water from Lake Tiberias to Beit Shean might not from our standpoint be subject to the difficulties surrounding the other parts of the proposal and might have merits similar to those which governed the Department’s attitude toward the East Ghor project (Tab D).⁵

The Government of Israel has now presented another note in which it states that it is ready to enter into negotiations with a view to reaching an agreement on the use of the Jordan and Yarmouk water resources (Tab E).⁶ It states (a) that Israel’s water development proposals can be incorporated into the regional development of the Jordan River waters; (b) that water resources development which Israel proposes is no more linked with its planned projections than is the East Ghor project in Jordan which represents the first stage of the Jordanian portion of the overall Johnston plan; (c) that the Jordan East Ghor project will bring about a unilateral change detrimental to Israel in the established usage of the water resources of the Jordan basin; (d) that the proposed Lake Tiberias–Beit Shean conduit to which the United States took a more favorable attitude cannot be equated with the Jordan East Ghor project, but is merely a remedial measure designed to repair the harm resulting from the East Ghor diversion; (e) that the first stage of the Jordan project will not, in the view of the Government of Israel, have an adverse effect on the salinity of Lake Tiberias.

Because Israel’s need for additional water supplies will, in the Israel Government’s view, become acute within the next few years, Israel is determined to go ahead on its master plan for developing water resources—with or without United States financial assistance. Without United States financial support the project will be completed at a much slower rate. A recent conversation with Mr. Manor indicated that because of probable international repercussions Israel views United States political support for the project as important to the Government of Israel as financial support.⁷ In any event, there are a number of points in Israel’s most recent note to us which do not appear to jibe with our understanding of the facts. Accordingly, our first task is to undertake a thorough technical review designed to compare Israel’s assessment and proposals regarding Jordan water resources with the assessment and unified development plan which governed the proposals of Ambassador Eric Johnston. In this connection, Mr. Herzog may suggest that Israel’s water development engineer could be made available for consultation on this point. We believe, however, that before such bilateral consultations take place a thorough technical staff study of our own records is required.

Mr. Herzog also may raise the question of further DLF assistance to Israel. In FY 1959, the Israel Industrial Institute was granted loans totalling $10 million. Israel still has applications pending totalling more than $30 million. It is understood that the DLF is now planning to proceed with a staff study of one of these applications—$7.3 million for a lubricating oil plant—in the second quarter of FY 1960. At the present time, it is not known what relative priority the Government of Israel places on its pending applications.

Mr. Herzog may also raise the question of Special Assistance to Israel. Discussion of this point would appear to be premature as Congressional action on the Mutual Security Program has not been completed.

Recommendations:

(1) That you inform Mr. Herzog that before we can express a view on Israel’s latest request for Jordan water development assistance, as thorough technical review of the problem by our technicians is necessary since some assumptions in the Israeli note do not seem to coincide with our understanding of the facts and recollections of the Johnston negotiations. (If Mr. Herzog suggests that Israel’s experts would like the opportunity to go over the records with us, you may wish to reply that such consultations might follow completion of our own studies.)

(2) With respect to DLF applications, it is suggested that you express satisfaction that we have been able to provide $10 million of DLF assistance to Israel (the second $5 million loan was approved only recently). You might also invite Mr. Herzog’s views as to the priority which the Israel Government attaches to its several pending DLF applications.

(3) With respect to Special Assistance, that you inform Mr. Herzog that no decisions on this type of aid can be reached until the magnitude of the Mutual Security Program has been finally determined.⁸

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 784A.5–MSP/7–2359. Confidential. Drafted by Roberts; cleared by Hamilton, L/NEA, and ED; initialed by Jones; and sent through S/S.
2. None of the tabs is attached to the source text. A copy of Tab A, the Israeli note, April 2, is ibid., 684A.85322/4–258.
3. Department of State note, August 1, 1958; not found.
4. See footnote 2, Document 66.
5. See Document 78.
6. The Israeli memorandum, July 17, is in Department of State, Central Files, 684A.85322/7–1759.
7. A memorandum of Manor’s conversation with Department of State officers on July 16 is ibid., 684A.85322/7–1659.
8. During the meeting at 4 p.m., Dillon made the points outlined here. Brief memoranda of conversation on the three economic topics are ibid., 784A.5–MSP/7–2359 and 884A. 10/7–2359; a summary of the discussion on water resources was transmitted to Tel Aviv on July 24 in airgram G–3. (Ibid., 684A.85322/7–2459)