357.AC/3–3150: Telegram
The Ambassador in Israel (McDonald) to the Secretary of State
228. March 31 Eytan in name Foreign Minister handed me without comment following note verbale requesting it be cabled:
“The Government of Israel considers it its duty to draw attention to the grave consequences that might ensue from the adoption of the Jerusalem statute as drafted by the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.
“The detachment of Jewish Jerusalem from Israel would inevitably disrupt the city’s institutional life. Instead of being governed by public bodies based upon the consent of the governed, Jerusalem would, under the proposed statute, be placed under an authoritarian régime, in defiance of the national allegiance and sentiment of its population. The Jews, who even before the present division of Jerusalem formed the majority of its inhabitants, would find themselves reduced to the position of a permanent minority in an unrepresentative and impotent legislative council.
[Page 830]“As far as the economic life of Jerusalem is concerned, detachment of the city from Israel will sever the arteries sustaining its economy and prevent any effective recovery, the establishment of a régime of economic autonomy being ruled out by the realities of the situation.
“Nor would the statute be conducive to the peace and security of the city. Indeed, by undermining the armistice agreements now in force, which for the past year have assured the security of life and property in both parts of Jerusalem, the proposed ‘internationalization’ would produce a renewed state of tension and unrest and expose the Jews of Jerusalem to the danger of encirclement and attack.
“As for the juridicial aspect of the proposal, attention must be drawn to the fact that the statute would impose a régime of trusteeship without this being based on any measure of agreement such as prescribed by the Charter of the UN. It would also be repugnant to the spirit of the Charter which does not warrant the imposition of any trusteeship régime on a population fully capable of governing itself.
“The proposed statute would not even contribute to the safety of the holy places. In engendering political conflict and turbulence and imposing upon Jerusalem a régime rejected by the bulk of its population, the statute could not but endanger also the security of the holy places, concern for which was the essential reason for the proposed ‘internationalization’.
“Finally, the Government of Israel would point out that the adoption of this unrealistic scheme would obstruct the search for an agreed solution which would safeguard the religious interests of all faiths and communities a solution which the State of Israel is anxious to see achieved—for the reasons stated, the Government of Israel ventures to express the hope that your government will not grant its support to the draft statute which, as shown, is fraught with grave perils for the welfare of Jerusalem, the safety of the Holy Places and the security of Israel, and is strongly opposed by the two governments now controlling the area of Jerusalem.” 31 March 1950.
Comment: Above is note referred to Geneva’s March 29, 448 to Department. End comment.1
Sent Department 228; repeated Baghdad 14, Beirut 15, Damascus 15, Jidda 14, Jerusalem 20; Department pass Amman 20, Cairo 62, Paris 40, London 53, Moscow 13, Geneva 13.
- No. 448 identified also as Tcdel 152, not printed; it advised that Mr. Eban, at Geneva, had informed the U.S. Delegation that the Israeli Government was approaching through diplomatic channels all governments represented on the Trusteeship Council regarding their votes on the Jerusalem Statute (350/3–2950).↩