Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XVII, Near East, 1961–1962

222. Telegram From the Embassy in Israel to the Department of State⁰

Tel Aviv, March 26, 1962, 8 p.m.

623. Foreign Minister¹ requested me to call this afternoon to express deep concern over what Israelis believe may be developing US point of view regarding Israeli sovereignty over Lake Tiberias. She stated in talk March 23 between members Israeli Embassy Washington and Ludlow of Department,² latter advanced theory that if part of lake bounded by demilitarized zone, question of sovereignty not decided because of provisions in General Armistice Agreement (GAA) relating to territory and boundaries in such zones. She rejected this argument firmly, declaring that Israeli sovereignty over entire lake absolutely clear and unquestioned since GAA. She referred to Johnston mission which continually reiterated fact lake lay in Israeli territory and was under Israeli sovereignty. Even Syrians, she declared, had not mentioned anything about demilitarized waters in lake until after incident of March 16/17.

Legal adviser Rosenne stated lake included within international boundaries of Palestine by British-French agreement in 1923 and it was agreed in 1949 when GAA drawn up that Syrians would retire beyond these international boundaries. Question of sovereignty raised tangentially in Security Council late in 1955, he said, but Israeli sovereignty not challenged by anyone but Syrians at that time and British and French delegates both stated emphatically in January 1956 that Lake Tiberias within Israel.

Mrs. Meir then commented that Israeli sovereignty over lake had not been questioned before except by Syrians and Israeli gravest concern now raised by US bringing matter to fore. Should Syrians sense any hesitation in US point of view relative to Israeli sovereignty over lake, Mrs. Meir believed trouble would then really begin and Syria could be expected in those circumstances abandon principles underlying Johnston plan, overthrow GAA, and perhaps resort to more serious measures. It should [be] clearly understood Israel did not plan to abandon in whole or in any part its claims over the lake. GOI was not disposed to obtain peace and quiet in area by permitting a chip of Israel to be broken off there. Jews were given nothing in Israel, she claimed, but bought the land with blood or money. As a consequence, GOI wanted Israel as it stood; peace and quiet in area not worth any invasion or diminution of Israeli sovereignty in any way. Normally, it was said, this question would have been raised in Washington but Gazit now in Israel so matter discussed here. To emphasize importance GOI attaches to subject, Mrs. Meir informed me she had interrupted full and heavy schedule attendant upon current visit of Swedish Prime Minister to raise matter with me.

I noted that I did not have benefit of any minutes on Ludlow-Israeli conversation and hence could not comment directly. Israelis had made statement of sovereignty, however, in their complaint to the Security Council and sovereignty was legal concept. As Department was working on all aspects of problem to prepare its position in the debate, legal facet also had to be considered and US motives should not be suspect merely because legal point raised. I was sure, I continued, Department wished reasonable solution to matter, but in view of expressed Israeli amazement and worry over point of view expressed in Department, I would endeavor ascertain Department’s thinking.

Please advise.

Barbour

0. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 683.84A/3–2662. Confidential; Niact. Repeated to USUN, Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, and London.
1. Golda Meir.
2. The Israeli Embassy had requested the meeting to discuss remarks made by Ludlow during Ambassador Harman’s meeting with Assistant Secretary Talbot on March 20; see Document 216. A memorandum of the conversation between Ludlow and Hanan Bar-On, Counselor of the Israeli Embassy, is in Department of State, Central Files, 683.84A/3–2362.