501.BB Palestine/11–1147: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
1198. Delegation this morning1 took following decisions re partition plan for Palestine:
[Page 1250]A. Implementation.
The critical situation in the working group on implementation was explained to the Delegation. The differences between the US and USSR proposals especially in regard to relationship between the commission and the SC were explained. It was noted that the Department preferred the omission from the US plan of the proposal for having the commission which supervises the implementation of the partition plan report to the Trusteeship Council. It was also explained that we would be willing to approve the Canadian proposal that the mandate be formally terminated on January 1, provided that the British were willing to exercise the functions of policing and internal administration until independent states existed in the area. It was noted that the British had not yet informed us whether they would be willing to assume this responsibility. With regard to the further question whether the Soviets would agree to the Canadian compromise proposal, and whether the US would assume some of the onus for failure to secure a partition plan by refusing to agree to the Canadian compromise, the American representatives in the working group were given discretion to make the necessary decisions, subject to instructions which may be received from the Department during the course of the day.
B. City of Jerusalem.
It was explained that there was considerable sentiment in the working group for a proposal that the international regime for the city of Jerusalem be limited to the ancient walled city of Jerusalem, with the new Jewish city being made a part of the Jewish state while the Arab city was incorporated in the Arab state. The international authority would exercise supervision over other holy places throughout Palestine. It was agreed that the American representatives in the working group should go along with the majority on this question, provided that adequate safeguards for the holy places were retained.2
[Page 1251]C. Territorial question.
It was pointed out that representatives of the Jewish Agency had stated that they could not give up their claim to the Negeb unless they received compensation elsewhere. Several delegations felt very strongly that the Arab claims to some of the Negeb were justified in view of the character of its population and the desirability of giving the Arabs a land bridge between Egypt and the other Arab states. It was suggested that the prospects be explored for a division of the Negeb, perhaps with some slight compensation to the Zionists in Galilee. If the matter arises in the working group today the American representatives will take a strong stand along the lines of the previous position adopted by the Delegation and will reserve the US position unless the solution recommended falls within the limits of the Dept’s instructions.
D. Economic union.
It was agreed that the American representatives should adhere strictly to the Dept’s position of opposing the Jewish Agency’s reservations with regard to a common currency for Palestine and a ceiling on contributions to the Arab state. The provision for a periodic review of the terms of the economic union were considered adequate to protect the interests of the Jewish state.
E. Freedom of religion.
It was agreed that, in the drafting of UN documents regarding the future of Palestine, the USDel would insist on the inclusion of the phrase “freedom of religion” rather than “freedom of religious worship,” the version preferred by the Soviets.
- November 10.↩
- Messrs. Wilkins and Merriam had already discussed
this matter by telephone. The Department’s point of view was then
sent to New York in telegram 556, November 10, 6 p. m., prefaced
with “for Hilldring from Henderson”, as follows: “We feel that such
a division is impractical and undesirable for following reasons:
- “1) It would be a further departure from the provisions of the Majority Report.
- “2) It would severely limit the territorial area under the authority of the Governor of Jerusalem and thus weaken his authority and prestige as guardian of the Holy Places throughout Palestine.
- “3) The majority of Christian establishments in Palestine are concentrated in Jerusalem but outside the Old City. Therefore the majority of Christian establishments would fall within the area of either the Jewish or Arab states. Considerable Christian opposition to such a move could be expected.
- “4) Difficulty of division of area by populations is illustrated by location of Hebrew University which is far removed from predominantly Jewish area, and separated by a predominantly Arab area.
- “5) Jerusalem has grown through a period of many years as a unitary city. The division of its administrative and municipal services, water supply, etc., would make them extremely difficult and costly to manage and operate.
- “6) Under the proposed division almost the whole modern commercial area as well as all important government buildings would go to the Jewish state. The Arab state would be forced to build up an entirely new city in an area mostly unsuitable for such construction.” (867N.01/11–1047)