501.BB Palestine/9–2849
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk)1
Subject: Israeli reaction to PCC Jerusalem proposals.
| Participants: | Eliahu Elath, Israeli Ambassador |
| G—Mr. Rusk | |
| NE—Mr. Wilkins | |
| NE—Mr. Stabler |
Problem: To inform Ambassador Elath of our concern over the Israeli reaction to the PCC proposals for the Jerusalem area.
Action Required: To inform Mr. Boss of USUN of Rusk–Elath conversation and probability Eban would approach him to discuss Jerusalem question.
Action Assigned To: NE.
Discussion:
I informed Ambassador Elath that I had asked him to come in connection with the Israeli reaction to the PCC proposals. I recalled that the GA resolution of November 29, 1947, included, inter alia, provisions for the full internationalization of Jerusalem. Since it was not [Page 1410] possible to implement this resolution, consideration was then given in the spring of 1948 to the possibility of trusteeship for all of Palestine in order to provide governmental machinery for Palestine following the termination of the British Mandate. When the fighting in Jerusalem became more severe, the UN focussed its attention on the Jerusalem question and considered ways and means of solving that question alone. A special trusteeship for the Jerusalem area was among the plans proposed and I had had the occasion at that time to discuss this matter with Mr. Sharett. I told him that a practical plan should be adopted for a permanent international regime for the Jerusalem area which would permit the integration of Jerusalem, in so far as consistent with its special international character, with the people and institutions in the rest of Palestine. I recalled that Mr. Sharett had not seemed averse to such a plan. I indicated that we believed that the present PCC proposals represent a practical approach of this character. We were therefore surprised and puzzled by the strength and immediacy of the Israeli reaction and I had wanted to discuss the question with the Ambassador in order to clear up any misunderstanding which might have developed on their part regarding the plan. For example, I wondered whether their objections were based on the difference between annexation and something less than annexation.
The Ambassador indicated that Israel had no intention of annexing Jerusalem and believed there was no foundation for such a charge. I said that perhaps I had not made my meaning clear, as I was not speaking of previous press reports that Israel planned immediately to annex Jerusalem but was now referring to a final settlement of the Jerusalem question.
The Ambassador repeated that Israel had no intention of annexing Jerusalem but felt that the present PCC plan did not take into account several important factors in connection with Israel’s interest in Jerusalem. He said that several points had annoyed them. He said the paragraph on immigration would prevent Israel from developing the economic life of Jerusalem and from increasing its growth as a cultural and religious center for the Jews. On the question of security, the demilitarization and the limitation on the number of police placed in jeopardy the security of the 100,000 Jews who are resident in Jerusalem. Israel felt that in view of the fact that Jewish Jerusalem is surrounded on three sides by Arabs that it could not afford to neglect the important question of security. Moreover, he doubted whether the UN could provide the administration necessary to carry out the plan. He wondered how the General Council as proposed in the PCC plan would be able to operate and where the funds would come from to [Page 1411] provide the $30,000,000 which the UN estimates is necessary for the administration of Jerusalem.
I indicated that on the matter of security it would seem unfortunate to start a competition on the size of the police forces and the quantity of armaments. I expressed the belief that these matters could be discussed in the GA and could be worked out satisfactorily in the General Council. With respect to the administration of Jerusalem, I thought his figures out of proportion, and in any event it was quite clear that the two areas would be administered and financed by the administering states. The General Council would only be called upon to consider matters which were common to both areas.
I then pointed out that the Catholic and Protestant communities in the US felt quite strongly about the problem of Jerusalem. We had tried to keep the question out of public debate, as we wished the matter considered along practical lines. We did not wish to have injected into the discussion the sentimental and emotional approach which would make it very difficult to arrive at a solution. We had considered Jerusalem as one problem in Palestine which could be settled without too much difficulty, and we had therefore been quite disappointed by the Israeli reaction. We wondered from the immediate strong press comments and statements by officials in Israel whether the Israeli Government had carefully considered the plan. We also wondered whether Israel and the US were talking about the same thing with respect to the meaning of the various provisions. I said I felt that more careful consideration of the plan by Israel and possibly talks between our people and the Israeli delegation in New York might result in dissipating some of the doubts which Israel had on various sections of the proposal. The Ambassador agreed and said he hoped it would be possible for Mr. Ross and Mr. Eban to get together.
The Ambassador said he felt it was unfortunate that the Israelis had not been consulted on the proposals prior to their submission to the UN. He felt that the Israeli objective in Jerusalem, i.e., the preservation and protection of the 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem, could have been better taken into account. Mr. Wilkins pointed out that the Jerusalem committee of the PCC, as well as others on the PCC, had discussed the proposals in detail with Israeli officials both in Tel Aviv and Lausanne during the past 8 months.
The Ambassador asked whether we had received any reaction from the Arabs with respect to the proposals. Mr. Wilkins said that Dr. Malik had made a speech in the GA which appeared to favor the proposals, and that informal talks with certain Arabs in Washington had indicated a generally favorable disposition.
[Page 1412]The Ambassador then asked whether the US gave its support to the proposals. I replied that the US, as a member of the PCC, had participated in the drafting of the proposals, and that while final determination on the question was one for the GA, the US did give its support in general to the proposals. However, I indicated that it was quite possible that a number of amendments would be proposed during the GA discussions and that we were prepared to consider them.
I then informed the Ambassador of our concern over the reports from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv indicating that there might be a resumption of terrorist activities. I pointed out that there were a number of American as well as other foreign officials in Jerusalem, and ref erred to the fact that the situation in Jerusalem had been closely related to the assassination of Count Bernadotte. I expressed the hope that Israel would take the necessary measures to protect the officials in Jerusalem. The Ambassador said that the Israeli Government was aware of the situation and felt the atmosphere in Jerusalem was considerably better in this respect. However, Israel needed the help of the US in connection with the Jerusalem proposals in order to avoid the resumption of these activities.
In connection with possible discussion between our people in New York and the Israeli delegation, I suggested that Mr. Eban might also wish to talk with some of the other delegations, including Colombia, which had expressed much interest in the question of Jerusalem. Mr. Elath replied that Mr. Eban had already done this and found that the majority of the Latin American delegations were more interested in the free access to and preservation of the Holy Places than they were in the broader question of internationalization.
I requested the Ambassador to bring to the attention of the Israeli Government our concern with respect to present developments on the Jerusalem question.2
- Drafted by Mr. Stabler, assigned to the Division of Near Eastern Affairs after his return from duty in Amman.↩
- In telegram 631, September 30, 8 p. m., to Tel Aviv (repeated to Jerusalem, Amman, and New York), the Department stated that “During past month Dept has noted with concern continuation public statements by Israeli officials and increasing press campaign in Israel and, US with apparent purpose of creating public belief proposed PCC plan provided for rigid internationalization and thereby prejudiced mutual relations between Israel and Jews resident in Jerusalem.” The telegram then summarized the Rusk–Elath conversation of September 28 and concluded with an instruction “to discuss Jerusalem question with Sharett and other Israeli officials along foregoing lines in continuation of instrns contained Deptel 605, Sept 19, and conversations reported Embtels 703, Sept 23, and 710, Sept 24. You shld emphasize that our approach to Jerusalem question is based on fact that Jerusalem and area surrounding it necessary to its existence are of deep concern to three great world religions and that it is our hope that solution for Jerusalem’s many intricate problems will be achieved by calm and constructive means.” (501.BB Palestine/9–3049) Of the reference telegrams, Nos. 703 and 710 are not printed; but regarding the latter, see footnote 1 to telegram 605, September 19, p. 1393.↩