501.BB Palestine/3–149
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs
Subject: Status of Jerusalem
| Participants: | Mr. Tom Bromley, First Secretary, British Embassy |
| NEA—Mr. Satterthwaite | |
| NE—Mr. Rockwell |
Mr. Bromley called at his request to leave the attached self-explanatory memorandum concerning the status of Jerusalem.1
After reading the memorandum we told Mr. Bromley that it would not be possible for the Department at the present time to give the Foreign Office a definite statement of this Government’s final policy regarding the status of Jerusalem. We said that the primary responsibility for recommendations concerning the future status of the Holy City has been placed upon the Palestine Conciliation Commission by the United Nations, and that the Department was awaiting with interest the Commission’s recommendations in this regard. We said, however, that the Department could now assure the Foreign Office that the United States Government supported the principle of the internationalization of the whole Jerusalem area, as set forth in the General Assembly Resolution of December 11, 1948.
We informed Mr. Bromley that the present trend of thinking on the working level in the Department was that in view of the financial [Page 784] and administrative difficulties of establishing a fullfledged international regime in Jerusalem, it might be possible to set up an arrangement whereby Israelis and Arabs (the latter presumably Transjordanians) would separately administer sections of the City, the division to be agreed upon by them, under the general supervision of some representation of the United Nations. This representation might take the form of the Office of a United Nations Commissioner, which would see to such matters as protection of and free access to the Holy Places, and unimpeded access to the whole city. We also informed Mr. Bromley that current thinking in the Department did not incline to the idea of internationalization of the Old City only and the incorporation of Jewish Jerusalem in Israel, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the attached memorandum.
We pointed out to Mr. Bromley that should Jerusalem be inter nationalized in a manner similar to the Department’s line of thought set forth above, there would be no question of Transjordan’s “losing the Old City” which would largely remain under Transjordan administration although Transjordan sovereignty would not apply.
In conclusion, we assured Mr. Bromley once more of the United States Government’s support of the principle of internationalization of the whole Jerusalem area, but reiterated our inability to make at the present time a definite statement of our own policy as regards the exact fashion in which the city might be internationalized, in view of the fact that the Palestine Conciliation Commission had not as yet made its recommendations. We stated that the Department would be pleased to receive any views that the British Foreign Office might have as to how the internationalization of Jerusalem might be achieved.
In reply to our query, Mr. Bromley said that our verbal exposition would serve as a satisfactory reply to the British memorandum.
- Undated memorandum not printed. The Department of State summarized the memorandum in telegram 127, identified also as Unpal 44, March 3, 7 p. m., to Jerusalem, as follows: “FonOff has heard that US Rep PCC, reflecting US policy, taking strong line re internationalization Jerusalem. FonOff interested know how far US will seek pursue this policy even against Israeli wishes. General policy HMG support of internationalization but they do not feel it is for them to restrict Abdullah from seeking whatever arrangement he thinks best. If USG intends support internationalization firmly, above Brit attitude may lead to divergence from US-French policy. HMG also worried that view practical difficulties internationalization whole city, Israeli proposal will be adopted that new city be part Israel and old city international. This totally unfair to Transjordan and HMG could not accept. HMG could only support internationalization whole city.” (501.BB Palestine/3–349)↩