501.BB Palestine/9–1649: Telegram
The Consul at Jerusalem (Burdett) to the Secretary of State
573. Sharett today issued following press statement:
“Instrument stands as its own condemnation. It is patently ineffectual in relation to purpose which it proposes to achieve. It bears no signs of real conviction on part of its authors as regards its real ability. It represents vain attempt to adapt theoretically conception [Page 1391] of international regime for Jerusalem based on principle of separate sovereignty in administration to realities of situation. In process its authors were driven to fly in face of those realities. By every test of justice and realism instrument is anachronistic and incongruous.
It is idle to disregard fact that Jewish Jerusalem is today for all practical purposes and in every political military administrative economic social and cultural sense an integral part of Israel. But for that organic connection and complete identification it would not have survived, nor would it have been able to maintain itself. While problem of Jerusalem formed subject of theoretical discussion on international scene before number of successive bodies Jerusalem itself went through death agonies, defended itself successfully against its attackers and rebuilt its life. It could achieve this only as part of state of Israel, and with its help find it is impossible to break this connection without again jeopardising its existence.
Tacit assumption of instrument that crucial problems of state sovereignty and rights of inhabitants to national allegiance and full-fledged citizenship can simply be bypassed renders the whole scheme illusory.
Equally unreal is express assertion that affairs of Jerusalem can today be effectively administered by mixed Jewish Arab council of equal composition. All such theoretical experiments in constitution making at expense of Jerusalem’s vital interests are matter of past.
Idea that population of Jerusalem can be deliberately and artificially frozen either in total size or in racial composition is utterly fantastic. Provision contained in instrument with regard to immigration is not merely a denial of right of every Jew to go up and live in ancient mother city of his people; nor does it merely constitute a grave menace to Jerusalem’s economic future; it is simply unenforceable in practice if Jerusalem is to be treated as living body and not as metaphysical abstraction. In providing for complete demilitarization of Jerusalem, to be applied in future to Jewish and Arab parts of the city, authors of instrument have completely disregarded another cardinal fact—that Jewish Jerusalem is today surrounded on three sides by [Arab?] territory. Formal equality of demilitarization becomes sham when gross inequality is inherent in realities of security situation. Such inequality can only be remembered by ever present capacity for effective defence. Tragic experience is there to be learned from, not to be brushed aside with sublime light-mindedness as irrelevancy.
Instrument itself is further convincing proof that application of principle of international responsibility to regime of Jerusalem cannot and need not go beyond supervision of holy places unless, indeed, principles of international administration were confined to the Old City with its shrines and religious foundations. Growing number of Christian countries and even some churches appear to be ready to accept this conclusion. In any case, insistence of international regime affecting sovereignty and administration by no means represents united will of Christian world. In forthcoming assembly delegation of Israel will do its utmost to show injustice and impracticability of proposed plan, and to prove to satisfaction of unfeasibility of solution which would fully safeguard rights and interests of all faiths and religious [Page 1392] institutions without encroaching upon freedom of Jewish Jerusalem and its indissoluble connection with its area Israel.”1
- Tel Aviv reported, on September 20, that “Strong opposition to PCC Jerusalem plan continues come from all sides, with menacing tones now being heard from such extreme elements as Herut (successors to IZL) and Communists.” A Herut rally at Tel Aviv on September 16 “pledged that Jewish youth would resume fighting underground in Jerusalem if government did not take lead in resisting plot against Jerusalem.” Chargé Ford concluded that “public opinion being whipped up to burning and possibly fighting point on question Jerusalem’s future.” (telegram 699, 501.BB Palestine/9–2049)↩