350/2–2350: Telegram
The United States Delegation to the Trusteeship Council to the Secretary of State
268. Tcdel 94. Although consideration article 21 Jerusalem draft statute has been deferred for time being, USDel believes thought must be given to position it should adopt with respect to composition of boundary, provided article 2(2). Present subparagraph 2 is obsolete and TC will be under necessity of providing for new boundary. It is believed that considerable debate will take place on this point.
At TC meeting February 21 French delegation made tentative suggestion that such commission could not demarcate boundaries without participation Israel and Jordan which are occupying authorities areas contiguous to Jerusalem. In opinion USDel such participation would imply de facto recognition of Israel and Jordan in those areas. While USDel is aware that during debates in last session GA US representative referred specifically to both Jordan and Israel as constituted authorities in territories touching on Jerusalem area, we feel that vote on inclusion Jordan and Israel on boundary commission has implied political connotations re US attitude on Jordan and Israel occupation of areas not allotted to them by partition.
This situation also obtains with respect to other articles where reference is made to “Jewish state and Arab state”. In case of former, Israel is obvious substitution but substitution of Jordan for “Arab state” has political implications.
Since US Government agrees in principle to incorporation Arab Palestine in Jordan and since authority Israel and Jordan in Jerusalem is presently exercised de facto, USDel is of opinion that it could support but not propose specific reference to Jordan and Israel as members boundary commission as well as substitution Jordan and Israel for “Arab state and Jewish state”.
Department’s instructions will be appreciated.2
Sent Department 268; repeated London 68, Jerusalem unnumbered; Department pass Tel Aviv unnumbered, Amman unnumbered, USUN unnumbered.
- This article dealt with the boundaries of Jerusalem.↩
- The Department of State, in reply on February 27, expressed agreement with the suggested position in the last paragraph of Tcdel 94. It stated that it “wld not regard support for participation Israel and Jordan in Boundary Comm as more than recognition of practical interest of these two states in Jerusalem settlements. If necessary, Del may state in TC that it does not regard this step as substantiation of any claims, gen or particular, which these two states may make re their position in areas adjacent to Jerusalem.” (Telegram 258, identified also as Deltc 27, 350/2–2350)↩