357.AC/4–1950
Memorandum of Conversation, by Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs
Subject: Jerusalem
| Participants: | Mr. Eliahu Elath, Ambassador of Israel |
| Mr. Aubrey Eban, Permanent Israeli Representative in the United Nations | |
| NEA—Mr. McGhee | |
| UND—Mr. Gerig | |
| ANE—Mr. Rockwell |
Discussion:
Messrs. Eban and Elath called at their request. They desired to discuss the question of Jerusalem.
Mr. Eban briefly reviewed the recent deliberations in the Trusteeship Council, saying that Israel at first had hoped that the Council would abandon the 1947 [1948] Statute and consider alternative proposals, but that it soon became evident that the Council members believed they had no choice but to go ahead under the instructions of the General Assembly. The result was the approval by the Council of a “completely unrepresentative and unrealistic document” which did not in any way take into account the allegiance of the people of Jerusalem for Israel and Jordan respectively.
Despite this fact, Israel still thought that there could be achieved the main objectives of the United Nations in Jerusalem. These were described by Mr. Eban as being the protection and control of the Holy Places and the maintenance of religious and spiritual rights. He mentioned the procedure suggested by Israel in the last General Assembly whereby there would be a contract between Israel and the United Nations providing for a UN representative to be accredited to the Israel Government who would have as his function the supervision of the protection of and free access to the Holy Places.
Mr. Eban said that Israel was now prepared to make proposals which would go further than this, as follows:
- 1.
- The UN would establish a statute for Jerusalem which would spring from the authority of the United Nations itself and not be in the form of a contract between the UN and the occupying powers.
- 2.
- Instead of an accredited representative of the United Nations in Jerusalem, there would be a representation of the United Nations, established as a result of the right of the world community so to indicate its interest in the Holy City. This representation would be wholly separate from the occupying states and would be a sovereign authority of the United Nations.
- 3.
- The UN representation would have full control of the Holy Places, including protection, free access, repairs, etc. There might even be a certain degree of extraterritoriality as far as the Holy Places were concerned. The UN representation would have the sole power of decision in disputes between the different religious communities in Jerusalem. Mr. Eban emphasized that insofar as the Holy Places were concerned the authority of the occupying Governments would more or less be withdrawn.
Mr. Eban added that Israel was willing to consider the extension of the authority of the UN representation to religious sites outside of Jerusalem and not included in the “status quo”. The exact terms of the Israeli proposal were not as yet set down on paper but Mr. Eban thought they would be in a week or so.
[Page 863]Mr. Eban stated that of course the attitude of Jordan was very important, and that a reaction to the new Israeli proposal might be that Israel was being very generous with Holy Places located in Jordanian territory. So far Jordan had adopted an uncompromising attitude toward recognizing any authority of the UN in Jerusalem. Messrs. Eban and Elath thought that it was very important that if Israel made a counterproposal in the Trusteeship Council such as the one outlined above, Jordan not maintain its present negative attitude. They pointed out that the Israeli proposal alone would not solve the problem and that if Israel and Jordan could agree they might together approach representatives of the world religious community.
Mr. Eban said that later on Israel would appreciate an expression of the views of the United States on its new proposal. Perhaps there would be an opportunity for the US to make helpful statements in the June session of the Trusteeship Council with a view that the Council in reporting to the fall meeting of the General Assembly, might make favorable reference to the Israeli proposal. It would also be helpful if the US could see its way clear to influencing Jordan to change its present negative attitude.
Mr. McGhee said that the US had given a great deal of thought to the Jerusalem question. However, the US was only one of a number of Christian nations deeply interested in the matter. Therefore, we had felt that we could not take as much initiative concerning Jerusalem as we had, for example, in the refugee question. He added that it was quite apparent that the General Assembly last fall did not feel that Israel was willing to go far enough to meet the international point of view on Jerusalem, and said that the new Israeli proposal seemed to indicate progress in the right direction. However, the Vatican was every bit as important as Jordan. The Department would consider whether it could be helpful in this new approach but it was, of course, not possible to make any commitments at the present time.
Mr. McGhee then suggested that Israel make renewed efforts to reach agreement with Jordan and the Vatican. Mr. Eban complained that the present Israeli contacts with Jordan were very poor and that the influence of some friendly nation would be very desirable. With regard to the Vatican the situation was very complex, but Catholic representatives with whom the Israelis had talked tended to continue to think in terms of a territorial international enclave. Israel was firmly opposed to this idea and so was Jordan. Therefore, agreement with the Vatican seemed far off.
Mr. Rockwell inquired whether Israel would be willing to consider adding other points to its proposal, such as the demilitarization of Jerusalem. Mr. Eban said that this would have to be very carefully considered. He did not think that it was generally realized how much [Page 864] progress had been made toward the demilitarization of Jerusalem under the armistice agreements. In conclusion, Mr. Eban said that Mr. Garreau, the President of the Trusteeship Council, would receive the Israeli proposal in ten days or so.
Action Required: To determine US attitude toward new proposal when received.
Action Assigned to: ANE, UND