Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, The Near and Middle East, Volume IX, Part 1

683.84A/3–1853: Telegrams

No. 584
The Chargé in Israel (Russell) to the Department of State¹

secret
priority

Tel Aviv, March 18, 1953—7 p.m.

1470. Joseph Tekoah, assistant legal adviser to Foreign Ministry, states that March 16 Israel-Syrian meeting discussed demarcation line in all sectors of demilitarized zone and that following points of divergence between parties emerged:

(1) Northern sector demilitarized zone. Israel argued for line established on basis of present cultivation and possession of land, with compensation for Arab-owned land being cultivated by Israelis. Syrians argued for line based on ownership of land. Syria allegedly rejected suggestion by Vigier that Commission be set up to inquire into present cultivation and ownership and to propose to next session line taking into account both principles.

(2) Central sector. Divergence on three major points: (a) Syrians “insisted” on principle of land compensation for all Arab-owned land in demilitarized zone “regardless of whether Arabs at present inhabiting zone as in case Shamalna or whether Arabs living in Syria”. According Tekoah, Syria was thus returning to its position prior to acceptance Gaon letter to Vigier (Embtel 1380)² of “demanding right annex piece of land equivalent to sum total of Arab-owned land left on Israel side of new demarcation line.” (b) Syrians put forward claim for “island of land between two arms of Jordan River opposite Buteiha.” Tekoah described this as departure from Jordan agreement to line along eastern bank of river. Added that Israel was prepared consider giving them island on understanding eastern arm of river would be “dammed off” but that this was rejected by Skugan representatives. (c) Syria reportedly claimed “full water rights”. According Tekoah, this was departure from earlier Syrian agreement accept Israel’s position on Jordan River (Israel sovereignty) on understanding Syrians would continue enjoy water rights they have had in past.

(3) Southern sector. Not discussed in detail. Compromise proposal expected to result from March 10 meeting (Embtel 1438)³ not presented and positions both parties at that meeting reportedly unchanged. Tekoah described territorial problem this sector as most complicated because of “interlacing” of Israel and Arab lands. Claimed that Syrian position March 10 meeting, by suggesting line which would bring Syria “very close to high war”, had gone beyond what Israel had previously been led to expect both from conversations Colonel Taxis and prior informal talks with Syrian representatives.

In conclusion Tekoah stated his impression Israel representatives discouraged and “outlook much less optimistic” as result above meeting. Gave as reasons (1) belief here that Syrian representatives are reverting to original positions in matters on which Israel understood compromises had been reached and (2) increasing propensity Syrians present proposals on basis that if Israel not prepared accept Syrian position little use in continuing. He praised Vigier for what he described as efforts keep Syrians in negotiating frame of mind and reported no decision yet on whether there will be meeting March 23.

Russell

1. Repeated to Damascus, Jerusalem, London, Amman, Baghdad, Beirut, Cairo, and Jidda.
2. Document 575.
3. Telegram 1438 from Tel Aviv, Mar. 12, reported on an Israeli Foreign Ministry official’s summary of the Mar. 10 Syro-Israeli meeting. The official stated that both sides presented views on the proposed demarcation line for the southern sector of the demilitarized zone, and each was to report to its government and to Colonel Taxis to propose a compromise line on the basis of this discussion. (683.84A/3–1253)