501.BB Palestine/4–2649
Memorandum by the Director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs (Satterthwaite) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk)1
Subject: United States Position Regarding Jerusalem
The Palestine Conciliation Commission which meets in Lausanne today will resume its consideration of some kind of international [Page 949] regime for Jerusalem on the basis of the December 11 Assembly Resolution. It will be necessary to give some directives to Mr. Ethridge and for this purpose four possible alternatives are outlined at the end of this paper for your consideration.
Until now the discussions with Israel and Transjordan on this subject have led to no agreement, except that both parties reject any far-reaching scheme of internationalization. The Prime Minister of Israel flatly stated to the Commission at Tel Aviv 7th of April “that the Israeli Government accepted without reservation the international regime for the holy places, but maintained that Jerusalem outside the holy places should be a part of the State of Israel”. He added that the State of Israel “would take its case on the Jerusalem question to the General Assembly”.
A recent telegram from Mr. Ethridge (Palun 127)2 outlines a proposal which combines certain elements of the French paper and various unofficial suggestions by the USDel which Mr. Ethridge thinks represents a sound basis for the Commission’s recommendations to the General Assembly. This combined draft, which is the basis of Alternative 2 below, is based on a minimal international obligation for Jerusalem under which a United Nations Administrator appointed by the General Assembly would have direct control over the holy places, including power to control access to them and decide disputes regarding them. The Jewish and Arab authorities respectively would be responsible for the day-to-day administration over their respective zones. Jerusalem would be demilitarized and formal assurances given by the two parties regarding inviolability of demarcation lines. This proposal appears to follow fairly closely the line indicated by the Secretary to Mr. Sharett on April 5.
This memorandum sketches four possible approaches to the Jerusalem problem.
Alternatives
1. International control of holy places alone.
The PCC might recommend that it was inadvisable or impossible to give concrete expression to the international interest in Jerusalem other than by providing for United Nations control of specified holy places in the Jerusalem area. This control could be exercised by a United Nations Administrator designated by and responsible to the General Assembly. The Administrator would have power to make regulations for use of holy place guards. The expenses of the Administrator, an appropriate staff, and the guards would be met by the United Nations budget. This arrangement for United Nations control of the holy places would be subject to approval by the General Assembly and [Page 950] would come into force when accepted by the Governments of Israel and Trans-Jordan; these Governments, it is presumed, would partition Jerusalem, aside from the holy places, by agreement between themselves, and such direct discussions are now actually in progress. The resolution of the General Assembly approving the above arrangements for the holy places could contain provisions regarding access to the holy places.
2. United Nations administration of holy places, partition of Jerusalem, and international undertakings covering the area.
In Palun 127 the United States Delegation to the Palestine Conciliation Commission has suggested a plan which goes somewhat further than the previous alternative but falls short of a true international regime for the City of Jerusalem. Under this plan the holy places in the Jerusalem area would be subject to the regime outlined in Alternative 1 above. In addition, the remainder of Jerusalem would be partitioned into Arab and Jewish zones, to be administered by Trans-Jordan and Israel, respectively. Persons living in one of the zones would have the citizenship of the state administering that zone. Jerusalem would be demilitarized. There would be international undertakings that the Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the General Assembly in December 1948, should be taken as a standard for the conduct of administration in the two zones. There would be an international administrative council, four from each zone and two neutral, to advise the two groups of zonal authorities on common services, coordination of police functions, city planning, economic arrangements, and other matters of municipal concern. There would be a right of access across the zones of Jerusalem to the holy places for all persons determined by the United Nations Administrator to be entitled to frequent these places. For the most part, local courts would perform judicial functions in their respective zones. There might be a mixed tribunal to handle civil cases in which there was zonal diversity of parties. There should be an international Court of Justice to decide questions concerning the interpretation and application of the arrangements for Jerusalem. This tribunal would give its opinion upon request by the authorities of either zone or by the United Nations Administrator. Opinions of the tribunal should be regarded as binding on the zonal authorities and the Administrator. All of the above arrangements for Jerusalem would be embodied in an instrument perhaps called a Statute. This Statute would first be approved by the General Assembly. It would come into force upon deposit with the Secretary General of acceptances by the Governments of Trans-Jordan and Israel. Finally, the Statute would provide that it could be amended [Page 951] or revoked by the General Assembly in a further exercise by that body of its dispositive power over Jerusalem.
3. United Nations trusteeship for the Old City.
A third alternative has been suggested, in which the arrangements referred to above in Alternatives 1 and 2 would be augmented by placing the Old City of Jerusalem under the international trusteeship system of the United Nations. The Old City, about one square mile which is now occupied by the Arabs, contains important Christian, Jewish and Moslem shrines. Under such an arrangement the United Nations Organization itself could be the administering authority for the trust territory, pursuant to Article 81 of the Charter. Under this alternative, the provisions with respect to holy places in the Jerusalem area would be the same as those outlined in Alternatives 1 and 2. The actual administration of the trust territory would presumably be carried on by a United Nations Administrator and staff provided for by the Trusteeship Council, but its public utilities would be assimilated to the other parts of the city. Trusteeship over the Old City of Jerusalem alone would have serious political disadvantages from the Arab point of view.
4. Two trusteeships for Jerusalem.
A fourth alternative would be to institute the arrangements contemplated in Alternative 3 by means of placing the Arab zone of Jerusalem under Trans-Jordanian trusteeship and the Jewish zone under Israeli trusteeship. The provisions of Alternative 1 with respect to holy places might be retained, with a United Nations Administrator controlling them. During Secretary Acheson’s talk with Foreign Minister Sharett of Israel early in April, the Secretary suggested trusteeship as a possible solution for the Jerusalem problem. Mr. Sharett, while not committing himself or purporting to express the views of his Government, indicated that he thought trusteeship might provide a solution and that the idea deserved to be looked into. If Trans-Jordan and Israel were to become administering authorities over two trust territories in Jerusalem, problems would be raised by the seating of these two countries on the Trusteeship Council when they are admitted to membership in the United Nations. Not only would Israel and Trans-Jordan be admitted to the Council, but two more nonadministering powers would have to be elected to the Council. Enlargement of the Trusteeship Council would probably impair somewhat the efficiency of that organ, More important, however, the problems of the two Jerusalem trust territories would be so different from the problems of the other trust territories that it is questionable [Page 952] whether it would be appropriate to place Jerusalem under trusteeships and introduce into the Trusteeship Council two or four states having no experience with colonial problems. Naturally Israel, Trans-Jordan, and the two additional nonadministering powers would have a voice in all matters coming before the Trusteeship Council. It appears from Palun 127 that the United States Delegation to the Palestine Conciliation Commission doubts the advisability of trying to accomplish through trusteeships the objectives of the international community concerning Jerusalem.
Recommendations
The Offices which join in this memorandum believe that Alternative 2 would be preferable to any of the others. There are several reasons which point toward this conclusion:
- 1.
- The United States Delegation to the Palestine Conciliation Commission regards a plan along the lines of Alternative 2 as constituting the most realistic and desirable plan under the circumstances.
- 2.
- Such a plan would give expression to the interests of the international community in Jerusalem.
- 3.
- At the same time it would not involve the United Nations Organization in substantial expenses or administrative responsibilites.
- 4.
- This plan, perhaps with certain modifications and adjustments, would seem to be possible of acceptance by the respective parties.
- 5.
- The plan would avoid certain difficulties for the Trusteeship Council which it is believed would result from a plan comprising two trusteeships for Jerusalem.
If you concur, we think instructions in the sense of the above should be sent to Mr. Ethridge. If you feel that the Jerusalem problem requires further consultation within the Department at the present stage, it is suggested that you might wish to meet at an early date with officers of NEA, UNA and L to discuss this problem in order to reach a Departmental decision on the instructions which should be sent to Mr. Ethridge.