501.BB Palestine/10–3048
The Acting Secretary of State to the Secretary of Defense (Forrestal)
My Dear Mr. Secretary: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1948,1 transmitting a memorandum from the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the question of an international police force for Jerusalem. Your letter suggests that the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff be the subject of consideration and decision by the National Security Council; and recommends that the most serious consideration be given to the last paragraph of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum, which indicates that possibly the necessary police force for Jerusalem could be recruited and administered by the “administering authority” of the Jerusalem enclave.
Under the trusteeship system of the United Nations, or the special international program envisaged in the November 29, 1947 resolution of the General Assembly, or the more generalized proposal of the Bernadotte plan, the “administering authority” for the Jerusalem enclave might be either the United Nations itself or one or more governments which would be appointed by the General Assembly as the “administering authority”. In the former case the recruitment of an international police force for Jerusalem would, in all practical effect, be the same as recruitment of individuals by the Secretary General of the United Nations. If a specific government or governments were charged with responsibility as “administering authority” for Jerusalem presumably their nationals only would make up the security force.
In light of the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that neither United States, nor Soviet, nor Soviet satellite forces, should be introduced into Palestine, it would appear to follow that the Joint Chiefs of Staff contemplate that the “administering authority” for Jerusalem be either the United Nations itself or some government a member of the United Nations, which is not either the United States, the Soviet Union, or a satellite of the USSR. This Department is not aware of any government which would be prepared to undertake the onerous and expensive obligations of administering the Jerusalem enclave unless it might be the Provisional Government of Israel, which would [Page 1548] be bitterly opposed by Arab States, or possibly some Arab government, which would be opposed by Israel.
On analysis, therefore, it would seem that the “administering authority” for Jerusalem would probably not be a single government or governments but, if so voted by the General Assembly, would be the United Nations itself. In this case, recruitment of the Jerusalem security force would be practically the same as that described in Paragraph (b) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum.
Meanwhile, I concur in your view that this problem should be reviewed as a matter of urgency by the National Security Council.
Sincerely yours,