501.BB Palestine/11–1749
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Wells Stabler of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs
| Participants: | Eliahu Elath, Ambassador of Israel |
| Aubrey Eban, Permanent Delegate of Israel to the UN | |
| NEA—Mr. McGhee | |
| ANE—Mr. Berry | |
| Mr. Wilkins | |
| Mr. Rockwell | |
| Mr. Stabler |
Problem: Mr. Eban informed Mr. McGhee that Israel proposed to submit to the United Nations a separate resolution on Jerusalem which would take into account the primary interest of the United Nations in the Holy Places.
Action Required: None
Action Assigned to: ANE
Discussion: Ambassador Elath and Mr. Eban came in at their request this afternoon to inform the Department that Israel proposed to introduce an Israeli resolution on Jerusalem in the General Assembly. This resolution would take into account the primary interest of the world community in the Holy Places and would call for Israeli control of the Holy Places under United Nations supervision. It would also call for a United Nations Commissioner to be established in Jerusalem. His functions would be limited to the matter of the Holy Places. The Israeli delegation had carefully considered the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument and had come to the conclusion that the various organs of United Nations Government would seriously interfere with and cut across present jurisdiction in Jewish Jerusalem. The delegation had also studied the recent clarifying statement of the Palestine Conciliation Commission and believed that statement was more closely related to the Israeli draft resolution than to the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument. Mr. Eban pointed out that the situation in Jerusalem today is entirely different from that of two years ago. The United Nations had not assumed any authority in Jerusalem and as a result fighting had broken out. It now appeared that the United Nations was endeavoring to assume for itself authority which had not existed previously.
He believed that the Jerusalem question should be presented in the United Nations on the basis of determining what the interest of the United Nations is in Jerusalem. He felt that the answer would be that the primary interest of the United Nations in Jerusalem is the Holy Places. He believed that considerable sentiment existed among the delegations to the United Nations, that the United Nations should not interfere with the daily lives of the people in that area and should concern itself only with the Holy Places. While Israel could not, of course, speak for the other side, the Israeli proposal was based on the assumption that Jordan would make a similar offer.
He indicated that while other delegations would undoubtedly be willing to offer the same type of resolution, it was felt that it would be more dramatic for Israel, one of the parties most intimately concerned with the question, to present the resolution. He emphasized that Israel was anxious to avoid the injection of religious and emotional factors into the consideration of the Jerusalem question and [Page 1497] he hoped that the General Assembly would take into consideration the attitude of the peoples most directly concerned.
He said that he wished to inform the department of the intention of Israel to introduce this proposal and to state that the resolution was not being introduced for tactical reasons to defeat the Palestine Conciliation Commission proposal. It was being presented on the basis of assuring to the United Nations its legitimate interests in the area. He hoped there might be United States support for this view.
Mr. McGhee expressed appreciation for Mr. Eban’s presentation and said that the United States, as a member of the Palestine Conciliation Commission, had participated in the drafting of the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument and, therefore, gave its general support to them. We realized that there would be amendments offered and we would, of course, consider them in the light of their merits and of their contribution to achievement of agreement on a Jerusalem plan. He pointed out that our support of the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument was not merely a formal one but was based on the conviction that the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument offered the most reasonable basis for agreement. We had been somewhat disappointed that Israel had felt that it could not go along with the instrument but assured Mr. Eban that the views he expressed would be taken into consideration. Mr. McGhee stated that since the General Assembly had set up machinery for dealing with this question and had instructed the Palstine Conciliation Commission to submit detailed proposals for a permanent international regime in the Jerusalem area, it was up to the General Assembly to decide the question.
Mr. Rockwell pointed out that the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s clarifying statement should be taken as an indication of what the drafters of the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument had in mind at the time they completed their proposals. He also stated that, generally speaking, it was the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s belief that the United Nations’ organization of administration provided for in the draft instrument would not conflict with the jurisdiction of the administering states, except in those matters of legitimate international concern. Then, in his control over the Holy Places, the United Nations Commissioner would to a certain extent share with Israel and Jordan in administering Jerusalem.
Mr. Eban said that the Israeli view was that the Palestine Conciliation Commission draft instrument would conflict with the jurisdiction of Israel in Jewish Jerusalem and regretted that the Palestine Conciliation Commission had approached this question from the wrong starting point. By this, he meant that the Palestine Conciliation Commission [Page 1498] should have commenced with the actual situation existing in Jerusalem today taking into consideration the attitude of the people most directly affected. In this connection it was pointed out that the Palestine Conciliation Commission had, of course, followed the instructions of the General Assembly with respect to the preparation of its proposals.