784A.00/2–550: Telegram
The Ambassador in Egypt (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
126. Foreign Minister handed me aide-mémoire1 last night asserting that Israel has consistently violated clauses of Rhodes armistice agreement,2 particularly by occupation on March 10, 1949, of villages Um Rash Rash and Bir Quatar in southern Negeb on Gulf Akaba. [Aide-]Mémoire complains that although decision on this case by Egypt-Israeli MAC finally scheduled for tomorrow February 6, Egypt “has no illusions” re opinion of its President on subject and that Riley in talks with Egypt delegation has “given to understand that he would not be in a position to dislodge the Israelis from the place which they occupy” in this manner.
[Aide-]Mémoire asserts Israelis have constructed airport near Um Rash Rash and have also assembled fleet of motor boats there disguised as fishing boats which Israelis intend use for seizure islands in Gulf Akaba which lie within Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territorial waters. To prevent this Egypt was therefore recently forced occupy Pharaon Island, north of Gulf Akaba, and Tiran Island (Re-Embtel 102 January 31) at entrance Gulf. [Aide-]Mémoire concludes that any Israeli attempt seize these or other Egyptian islands would be resisted by force and that presence of Israelis at Um Rash Rash and Bir Quatar constitutes threat to peace of region.3
Text aide-mémoire will be forwarded immediately by pouch.4
Sent Department 126, repeated London 10; pass Jerusalem 2; pouched Arab capitals. Department repeat to Riley if he is not at Jerusalem.
- Not printed.↩
- For documentation on the negotiations leading up to the Rhodes Armistice Agreement, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. vi, pp. 621 ff. For text of the Agreement signed on April 3, 1949, see United Nations, Official Records of the Security Council, Fourth Year, Special Supplement No. 1.↩
- On February 5, Ambassador McDonald informally raised with Mr. Eytan the question of the Israeli attitude toward the islands. The latter was said to have insisted that Israel had not the slightest interest in them. The Ambassador commented that his Military and Air Attachés and he himself doubted that Israel had so casually overlooked them (telegram 77, February 6, 774.54/2–650).↩
-
Raleigh A. Gibson, the Consul General at Jerusalem, reported on February 8 the ruling of General Riley that the Israeli occupation of Um Resh Resh was not a violation of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement. Rather, since the town was in the eastern Negev and Israeli occupation had occurred during the period of truce between Israel and Jordan, the Israeli action was a violation of the truce between Israel and Jordan (telegram 39 from Jerusalem, 674.84A/2–850).
General Riley also ruled that Israeli occupation of Bir Qattar was a violation of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement, inasmuch as it was located in the western Negev and the establishment of the Israeli outpost took place after signing of the Israeli-Egyptian armistice agreement (telegram 39 from Jerusalem, 674.84A/2–850).
Telegram 39 also advised that during General Riley’s review of the Egyptian complaints, an Egyptian aide-mémoire was delivered to him to the effect that “unless Jews agreed to evacuate Um Resh Resh and Bir Qattar, Egyptians would under no circumstances open any direct political talks with Jews.” Mr. Gibson presented his view that the question appeared to be political in nature since the Egyptians insisted on evacuation of the two posts because the Israelis were holding the only land communication route between Egypt and the other Arab states. He concluded with his sincere hope that “Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not attempting to find a reason for avoiding direct political talks taking place. Jordan can only go so far. Do not believe that even Abdullah can come to terms with Israelis before Egypt has taken lead. Therefore consider any pressure that can be brought to bear on Egypt and Israel to open direct negotiations is timely and should pay dividends.”
↩