501.BB Palestine/2–1349
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk)1
| Participants: | Mr. Aubrey Eban, Israeli Representative to the UN |
| Dr. Moshe Keren, Counselor, Embassy of Israel | |
| Mr. Rusk, Deputy Under Secretary | |
| Mr. Wilkins, ANE |
Problem; Implementation of the General Assembly Resolution of December 9 regarding Jerusalem.
Action Required: To consider the Israeli view.
Action Assigned to: ANE
Mr. Eban, accompanied by Dr. Keren, called on me this afternoon, at their request, for the purpose of discussing the Jerusalem question in the light of the adoption by the General Assembly on December 9 of a resolution instructing the Trusteeship Council to revise its statute for Jerusalem and to implement it.
[Page 1537]Mr. Eban said he was glad the “nightmare” of General Assembly consideration of the Palestine question was over and that he appreciated the harmony which had existed between the Israeli delegation and the US delegation in the Assembly concerning the Jerusalem question.
I interjected that I appreciated Mr. Eban’s remark but observed that although we were agreed on opposition to the amended Australian resolution regarding Jerusalem, we had not been in agreement concerning the type of resolution which we felt the General Assembly should pass.
Mr. Eban said that this was correct but, now that the General Assembly had adopted the Resolution of December 9, he wished to discuss it from the point of view of immediate repercussions and future action.
Mr. Eban said that the immediate repercussions of the adoption of the General Assembly Resolution had been as expected in Israel. The people of Israel and the people of Jerusalem did not believe that Jerusalem could or should be separated from Israel. Mr. Eban anticipated that the Israeli Parliament would discuss the matter in detail and added that a resolution proclaiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and a motion of no confidence in the Government would probably be introduced. Mr. Eban remarked that because of the public reaction in Israel and the proposed discussions and resolutions in the Parliament the Prime Minister would probably be required to reassure the Israelis regarding the Government’s intentions.
I asked Mr. Eban exactly what was the juridical status of Jerusalem. He said it was exactly the same this week as it had been last week. There was no change in the juridical status of Jerusalem, nor was one intended.
Mr. Eban continued by remarking that the General Assembly Resolution of December 9 cut across the existing patterns of authority of Israel and Jordan in Jerusalem, that it cut across the existing armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan as far as Jerusalem is concerned, and that it cut across current talks between Israel and Jordan with respect to a settlement of the Palestine question, including the particular question of Jerusalem. Mr. Eban stated that it would be Israeli policy to bring about a “reversal” of the GA’s resolution of December 9.
With respect to the Israeli-Jordan conversations, Mr. Eban believed that a successful outcome might be forthcoming in a matter of hours, perhaps a few days, and that, in general, the General Assembly Resolution had probably accelerated a successful outcome to these talks, whereas it had probably made further Israeli talks with the Vatican impossible.
[Page 1538]I asked Mr. Eban whether it would not be helpful if Israeli representatives continued to explore the Jerusalem question with the Vatican. He said that the Vatican was probably “elated” with the passage of the General Assembly Resolution of December 9, which the Vatican had not anticipated, and that he was not optimistic regarding further talks at this stage.
I pointed out that a successful settlement of the Jerusalem question involved not only agreement between Israel and Jordan but also between Israel, Jordan and other religious interests, including particularly the Vatican. I added that in order to achieve such agreement all of those interested would undoubtedly be required to compromise their official positions. I urged upon Mr. Eban the importance of endeavoring, in so far as the Israelis could, the continuation of further talks with the Vatican.
I remarked, with regard to the General Assembly Resolution of December 9, that it posed a number of legal questions and that it raised the question of implementation. I recalled that the Trusteeship Council was under instructions from the General Assembly and observed that the Assembly’s action, in so far as the members of the United Nations were concerned, had the status of a recommendation as had the Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947. I remarked, regarding implementation, that the UN had no forces at its disposal and again expressed the hope that all of the parties interested in Jerusalem, both Israel and Jordan, as well as Catholic interests, would endeavor to work out together a settlement of the question. I said that the US as a member of the UN on the Trusteeship Council would work constructively in the Council.
- Drafted by Mr. Wilkins.↩