How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault?
This analysis examines the specific diplomatic failure and military mobilization that preceded the 1966 attack on Samu, detailing the role of U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour and the subsequent UN Security Council…
Cite this page
“How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault?” thisDay, thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2026.
How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault? (n.d.). thisDay. Retrieved November 13, 2026, from https://thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/
“How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault?” thisDay. Accessed November 13, 2026. https://thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/.
Diplomatic Intent vs. Operational Reality
The following rows contrast the diplomatic signals sent by Jordan with the military actions taken by Israel and the subsequent international legal assessment.
| The plan needed | What happened | Why it mattered |
|---|---|---|
| King Hussein's letter of condolence would reach Prime Minister Eshkol to signal restraint. | U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour left the letter on his desk, delaying its delivery. | The message did not reach the Israeli leadership before the military mobilization began. |
| Israel would avoid a large-scale retaliatory raid as promised in clandestine meetings. | Israel launched Operation Shredder, the largest cross-border assault since 1956. | The scale of the operation violated the General Armistice Agreement and drew UN censure. |
| The mine attack was attributed to Jordanian territory, justifying a response. | The mine was reportedly planted by Fatah guerrillas, a group Jordan was actively curbing. | The attribution highlighted the complex dynamics between Jordan, Fatah, and Israel. |
Clandestine Channels and the Mine Incident
Since 1963, King Hussein of Jordan had engaged in clandestine meetings with Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir and Prime Minister’s deputy Abba Eban. These discussions focused on peace and mutually secure borders. During one such meeting, Hussein stated he could not absorb a serious retaliatory raid. The Israeli representatives accepted this logic and promised such an event would never occur. This diplomatic understanding formed the backdrop for the events of November 1966, creating an expectation of restraint that would soon be tested by border incidents involving Palestinian fedayeen groups.
On the night of November 11, 1966, an Israeli border patrol vehicle carrying policemen drove over a land mine near the Israeli-Jordanian border. The explosion killed three soldiers and wounded six others. The mine was reportedly planted by Palestinian guerrillas from Fatah, a group that had been conducting insurgent activities from the West Bank. Jordan had been conducting an active campaign to curb these activities since 1965. The incident provided the immediate trigger for Israeli military planning, shifting the focus from diplomatic management to a large-scale retaliatory operation codenamed Operation Shredder.
The Delayed Letter and Military Mobilization
On November 12, King Hussein sent a letter of condolence to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. The letter was routed via the U.S. embassy in Amman and then to U.S. ambassador Walworth Barbour at the embassy in Tel Aviv. Instead of forwarding the letter to the prime minister, Barbour left it on his desk. He assumed the message was not important or held it back because the Sabbath was approaching. This administrative delay meant the diplomatic signal did not reach its intended recipient in a timely manner. The failure of this communication channel occurred just hours before the Israeli military began its cross-border operation.
Early on the morning of November 13, King Hussein received an unsolicited message from his Israeli contacts stating that Israel had no intention of attacking Jordan. Simultaneously, the Israeli military mobilized between 3,000 and 4,000 troops. Approximately 600 of these soldiers, accompanied by 60 half-tracks and 11 tanks, crossed the border into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank. This force represented the largest Israeli military engagement since the 1956 Suez Crisis.
Operation Shredder and the Targeting of Samu
The primary rationale for the cross-border assault was to avenge the three Israeli deaths in the land mine incident. Israel alleged the attack had originated from Jordanian territory. A further goal of the operation was to demolish houses in Palestinian villages located south of Hebron. This action was intended as a show of force to preempt future Palestinian violence. The village of Samu, located 12 kilometers south of Hebron, became the focal point of the assault. The deployment of tanks and half-tracks signaled the gravity of the military response. The scale of the operation drew immediate international attention and highlighted the tensions along the demarcation line.
The attack on Samu represented a significant shift in regional military dynamics. By deploying such a large force across the border, the Israeli military engaged in a large-scale action that was carefully planned. The operation involved the destruction of property and loss of life, which became central to the subsequent international debate. The handling of the incident was widely criticized within Israeli political and military circles. The scale of the response to a mine attack that killed three soldiers raised questions about proportionality and the adherence to previous diplomatic assurances. The event marked a departure from the clandestine understanding that serious retaliatory raids would be avoided.
International Censure and Resolution 228
The United Nations responded to the attack with Security Council Resolution 228, adopted on November 25, 1966. The resolution was proposed by Nigeria and Mali and adopted by 14 votes to 0, with 1 abstention. The United States voted in favor of the resolution. The document observed that the incident constituted a large-scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel. It reaffirmed previous Security Council resolutions condemning past incidents of reprisal in breach of the Israel-Jordan General Armistice Agreement and the UN Charter. The resolution emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to the General Armistice Agreement.
Resolution 228 deplored the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from Israel's action on November 13. It censured Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the United Nations Charter and the General Armistice Agreement. The Security Council emphasized that if actions of military reprisal were repeated, it would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisaged in the Charter. The document further asked the Secretary-General to monitor the situation and provide reports to the Security Council when deemed necessary. This formal censure marked the international community's response to the breach of the demarcation line and the scale of the military engagement.
Timeline: Israeli military launches cross-border assault on Samu
- 1963 King Hussein begins clandestine meetings with Israeli officials
- 1965 Jordan begins active campaign to curb Fatah insurgent activities
- 1966-11-11 Israeli border patrol vehicle hits a mine, killing three soldiers
- 1966-11-12 King Hussein sends condolence letter to Prime Minister Eshkol
- 1966-11-13 Israel launches Operation Shredder on Samu
- 1966-11-25 UN Security Council adopts Resolution 228
Related on thisDay
Cite this page
“How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault?” thisDay, thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/. Accessed 13 Nov. 2026.
How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault? (n.d.). thisDay. Retrieved November 13, 2026, from https://thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/
“How did a delayed condolence letter intersect with the Samu assault?” thisDay. Accessed November 13, 2026. https://thisday.info/history/1966-attack-on-samu-1966/.