The ceasefire on the Egyptian front did not remove insecurity from other fronts or resolve civilian movement. The government protested military pressure near Aqaba while discussing border fire, Bedouin return, and relief for the surrounded army at الفالوجة AL-FALUJA.
What did the government fear near Aqaba?
Klir’s January 10 entry records concern over British military activity linked to the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. The government of מדינת ישראל MEDINAT YISRAʾEL feared a confrontation that could involve the United Kingdom’s treaty commitments and officers serving the Arab Legion. The recorded protest establishes concern and a diplomatic action; it does not prove a finalized invasion plan.1
How was Ramat HaKovesh affected by another front?
Representatives of רמת הכובש RAMAT HAKOVESH reported firing from positions held by the army of the Kingdom of Iraq. They described eleven deaths since May 1948 and more than seventy residents who had left. Those are cumulative local claims recorded by דוד בן-גוריון DAVID BEN-GURION, not eleven deaths or seventy departures on January 10. The ceasefire with the Kingdom of Egypt did not itself settle the Iraqi-held front.2
What did the Bedouin-return report establish?
אלימלך אבנר ELIMELEḪ AVNER reported the return or planned return of three tribal groups with an estimated combined population of about 9,000. The diary distinguishes a group already returning from those expected afterward. It establishes administrative involvement in population movements, not a completed return of all 9,000 by that date or the voluntariness of every movement. The January 4 policy discussion and this report concern distinct acts and classifications.3
Which relief was permitted at Faluja?
The diary records agreement to allow medical supplies for the surrounded Egyptian force while declining food. That decision identifies the government’s conditions on relief at this stage. It does not establish a shipment’s departure, crossing, receipt, or a broader relief agreement already in force.4 Later arrangements require their own dated implementation evidence.
How is this dated?
This is Day 408 of the 599-day civil-date series: 1949-01-10. Its daytime public route is ט׳ בטבת ה׳תש״ט 9th 𝑜𝑓 Tevet, AM 5709; an occurrence after local sunset belongs to י׳ בטבת ה׳תש״ט 10th 𝑜𝑓 Tevet, AM 5709. The recap route dates the civil-day account, not every event it covers. The dated diary or documentary report supplies this day’s developments; relative dates and later memorial, publication, or dispatch dates are identified beside the affected claims. Night action, policy discussion, proposal, and implemented action remain distinct.5
Guided reflections
- How does the partial return report differ from a completed return of all 9,000 people?
- What would establish whether permitted medical supplies actually reached Faluja?
Footnotes
- Yosef Klir, ממנדאט למדינה, Entry 10.1.49; retrospective compilation. ↩
- David Ben-Gurion, diary, January 10, 1949, Community representatives’ complaint. ↩
- David Ben-Gurion, diary, January 10, 1949, Avner’s report of three groups and sequence. ↩
- David Ben-Gurion, diary, January 10, 1949, Medical supplies versus food. ↩
- David Ben-Gurion, diary, January 10, 1949, Dated record; occurrence versus report role explained above. ↩
Works cited
- Klir, Yosef. ממנדאט למדינה: יומן מלחמת השחרור של עם ישראל. Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1952. Project Ben-Yehuda digital text. https://benyehuda.org/read/23753. Accessed October 11, 2026.
- David Ben-Gurion, diary, January 10, 1949. Ben-Gurion Archive. Hosted transcription/translation; translation authorship and facsimile collation remain qualified in the article. https://bengurionarchive.bgu.ac.il/en/node/9976. Accessed October 11, 2026.