501.BB Palestine/12–1549
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs
| Participants: | Dr. Moshe Keren, Israeli Embassy |
| Miss Esther Herlitz, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs | |
| Mr. Hare, NEA | |
| Mr. Wilkins, ANE | |
| Mr. Rockwell, ANE |
Problem: Attitude to be adopted re Israeli desire that Trusteeship Council not take certain steps in connection with Jerusalem case.
Discussion: Dr. Keren and Miss Herlitz called at their request at the instance of Mr. Eban. They said that Mr. Eban had heard that the Trusteeship Council was considering two matters: 1) The extension of an invitation to the Israeli Government to designate representatives to take part in the discussions in the Council on the preparation of a statute setting up an international regime for Jerusalem. 2) A draft resolution proposed by the French representative on the Council condemning Israel for recently taking action concerning Jerusalem in opposition to the provisions of the General Assembly resolution of December 9, 1949.
Re 1), Dr. Keren said that the Israeli Government hoped that no such invitation would be extended since Israel would be unable to participate in discussions looking toward the establishment of a regime to which it was firmly opposed. An invitation to participate would have to be refused, with resulting embarrassment both for the Trusteeship Council and Israel. Mr. Hare said that he thought it was customary for the Council to issue invitations to the interested parties to attend sessions of the Council when matters of interest to them were being discussed and that it might be difficult for the Council to make an exception in this case. He recalled that in the Somaliland case the Council had issued an invitation to Ethiopia despite the latter’s attitude on the matter. Mr. Hare could give no assurances as to what the US attitude in this instance would be, but we would keep the Israeli position in mind.
Re 2), Dr. Keren said that if the Council passed a condemnatory resolution public opinion in his country, already inflamed against the UN because of the December 9 resolution, would become even more bitter. Such a resolution would make it more difficult to obtain in a calm and dispassionate atmosphere a new and more realistic UN decision on Jerusalem. He very much hoped it would be possible to avoid bringing a resolution of this nature to vote in the Council.
[Page 1544]Mr. Hare said that we had heard that the French representative had introduced a draft resolution, but that he had not seen the text. We did not as yet know what the attitude of our Government on this matter would be, but he wished to point out that a majority decision on Jerusalem had been taken by the United Nations and that the Trusteeship Council had been given certain specific instructions by the General Assembly. The United States was a loyal member of the United Nations and of the Trusteeship Council, and was naturally going to play its part when the Council considered the course of action to take. Dr. Keren said that of course he understood this.
Mr. Hare stated that there have recently been strong actions taken and statements made in Israel concerning Jerusalem, and that it was natural that these should provoke a reaction in the Trusteeship Council. The United States Government was concerned by moves taken in Israel likely to prejudice or complicate the work of the Trusteeship Council in the task assigned it by the General Assembly.
Both Dr. Keren and Miss Herlitz maintained that what had recently happened in Israel was merely a further development in the process of moving Government offices to Jerusalem which had been going on for some time. They said that despite strong pressure in the Cabinet to do so, the Government had refused to proclaim Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Certain statements had been made to appease public opinion, but in reality the situation was more or less the same as before.
Mr. Hare could not agree with this, and said that he thought that the recent events in Israel could not really be described as unimportant further steps in a gradual process. Much stronger things had been done and said in the past few days.
Dr. Keren then returned to the importance of public opinion in Israel, and said that no democratic government, in the face of a decision such as the one just taken by the General Assembly, could refuse to act as the people desired. We pointed out that as far as Jerusalem was concerned Israel had to reckon as well with world opinion.
When questioned as to where the capital of Israel actually was at the present moment, Dr. Keren said that Israel really would not have a capital until a constitution had been adopted. The provisional capital was at Tel Aviv, but both Tel Aviv and Jerusalem had the necessary attributes for a capital, particularly now that Government offices had been located in Jerusalem.
Dr. Keren then reiterated the hope that the Trusteeship Council would pass no resolution condemning Israel. Mr. Hare said again that he could give no assurances as to what the US attitude on the question would be, as we had not had time to study the matter thoroughly.