2. During last three weeks US Government has issued series of statements
expressing our views on Jerusalem. On June 19, President said: “There
must be adequate recognition of the special interest of the three great
religions in the Holy Places of Jerusalem”. A White House statement on
June 28 said that the President “assumes that before any unilateral
action is taken on the status of Jerusalem there will be appropriate
consultation with religious leaders and others who are deeply concerned
… The world must find an answer that is fair and recognized to be fair.
That could not be achieved by hasty unilateral action and the President
is confident that the wisdom and good judgment of those in control of
Jerusalem will prevent any such action.” Later on the same day, after an
announcement of Israeli action to place Jerusalem under a unitary
administration, the Department of State issued a further statement
reading as follows:
“The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as
determining the future of the Holy Places or the status of Jerusalem in
relation to them.
The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of
the States in the area as governing the international status of
The policy of the United States will be governed by the President's
statement of June 19 and the White House statement this morning.
3. In line with USG views on Jerusalem,
we voted in favor of the Latin American resolution in UNGA on July 4, which would have
reaffirmed “the desirability of establishing an international regime for
the City of Jerusalem, to be considered by the General Assembly at its
22nd Session (Fall 1967)”. Unfortunately, this resolution did not
receive a two–third majority and failed of adoption.
4. At this point, GA took up Pakistani
resolution on Jerusalem which declared (1) that measures taken by Israel
in Jerusalem are invalid; (2) called upon Israel to rescind these
measures and desist from action that would alter the status of
Jerusalem; and (3) asked Secretary–General to report to GA and SC on
implementation of resolution within one week. US sought amendment to
Pakistani resolution to bring it into line with USG position on Jerusalem as indicated earlier.
Regrettably, our suggested changes were not accepted. Since Pakistani
resolution as voted contained elements that were unrealistic and
appeared unlikely to produce any constructive results (such as provision
for SYG report within seven days), we
abstained in voting on this resolution.
5. Although we did not feel we could vote for Pakistani resolution, we
also did not oppose and vote against it. We agreed with Pakistani
resolution in sense of its expressing Assembly concern over situation
that would arise if unilateral measures were taken permanently to alter
status of Jerusalem. US abstention on this resolution should be
interpreted as indicative of our own concern.
6. US views on question of Jerusalem remain as stated by USG on June 19 and June 28 and again by
Ambassador Goldberg in UNGA (wireless file carries text of
statement released to press by USUN on
July 4).4For text, see Department of State
Bulletin, July 24, 1967, p. 112.
We will continue to stress our opposition to any unilateral efforts to
change the permanent position in Jerusalem or elsewhere, and to insist
that any such change be accomplished only by internationally effective
action, taking full account of international interests. We do not
recognize Israeli measures as having effected changes in formal status
(a) Israelis are in that city, as they are in other recently occupied
territory, as a result of hostilities last month.
(b) Israel may thus be said to be an occupying power with duty under
international law to conform its administration as closely as possible
to existing local law.
(c) Israeli action to establish a unified municipal administration of
Jerusalem cannot be regarded and will not be recognized as a valid
annexation, or a permanent change in legal status of Jerusalem in any
(d) It should be considered an interim administrative measure to provide
a more convenient and efficient occupation regime for area formerly
under Jordanian control, using Jordanian police and other officials
(e) Government of Israel has made it clear that it does not claim that
its unified administration of Jerusalem is an annexation.
7. In spirit of statements already made by US defining our public
position, we intend to work toward equitable settlement of Jerusalem
problem developed through consultation among all concerned.
1Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Central Files 1967–69, POL 27 ARAB–ISR/UN. Confidential.
Drafted by Popper and
Eugene Rostow, cleared by
Meeker and in substance
by Davies, and approved by
Rostow. Also sent to the U.S. Missions at Geneva and USUN and repeated to Jerusalem.
2General Assembly Resolution
2253 (ES–V), adopted July 4, 1967. Concerning the Pakistani draft
resolution, see footnote 2, Document