350/5–1950: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
priority
443. For Rockwell, ANE. Eban and Rafael (Israel) called on Ross this afternoon at their request and left with him copies of draft of memorandum1 to be presented by Israeli Government to Trusteeship Council on question of Jerusalem. They said they would present draft to Garreau, TC president, around May 26, and until then at least it is confidential. They have shown it to British, French and some other members TC. Eban requested Department’s reactions to it.
[Page 904]Eban also left letter addressed to me, text of which follows:
“I have the honour to enclose the draft of a memorandum which I shall submit to the President of the TC on behalf of the Government of Israel before the opening of the seventh session. This document comes as a reply to the resolution of the TC adopted on the 4th April, 1950, and to a subsequent letter from M. Garreau enclosing the text of a statute for Jerusalem.
On April 19 I had the privilege of joining Ambassador Elath in Washington for a discussion of the Jerusalem question with Assistant Secretary of State George C. McGhee and his colleagues.2 In the course of that conversation we indicated that the Government of Israel planned to offer proposals for a solution of the Jerusalem question in an effort to reconcile all the interests involved—especially the interests of the religious world and those of Israel and Jordan. The Assistant Secretary of State assured us that US aspired to a solution reconciling the legitimate interests of these three parties, and would look with sympathy on any constructive effort that might be taken towards that end. The idea of a UN statute for the Holy Places which I outlined orally on that occasion appeared to be regarded by the Assistant Secretary of State and his colleagues as a constructive effort in that sense, and my government has felt encouraged to take further steps in formulating its proposals.
The enclosed document begins with a detailed argument explaining why the statute adopted by the TC in Geneva does not provide an effective solution of this problem. In its second part, however, it goes on to elaborate the principles which might underlie an equitable and practicable solution. This second part contains all the proposals which I outlined orally in the Department of State on April 19. On that occasion they had only tentative validity. With the presentation of this memorandum, however, they would become the formal policy of the Government of Israel. The effect of this proposal would be to establish a statutory system whereby all matters directly affecting the Holy Places in Jerusalem, and the unique religious life which revolves around the Holy Places, would come under the jurisdiction of the UN through a permanent organ to be established for that purpose. At the same time my government states (in paragraph 18) that if the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan were disposed to accept the establishment of a direct international regime over the limited area containing the main Holy Places, in the walled city and its immediate environs, the Government of Israel would cooperate in the establishment of such a regime. However, it is because we have no reason to believe that such a project is acceptable at this time to the Government of Jordan that we have devoted more specific and detailed attention to the proposal for a statute of the Holy Places to be adopted by the GA and implemented by a special organ of the UN.
My government has deeply appreciated the friendly and cooperative discussions which its representatives have had on this question with US representatives during the fourth session of the GA, the sixth session of the TC, and, more recently, in Washington. The principles [Page 905] which we now suggest for a solution have been formulated in a conscious effort to take account of the views which US representatives have expressed to us. My government believes that it is urgent for this problem to be settled rapidly in an atmosphere of harmony and consent. A continued deadlock with the UN remaining committed to an unimplementable plan indignantly opposed by the populations concerned, could only prejudice the stability of the entire Middle East area; perpetuate an unfortunate state of inter-religious relations in the world; hinder the efforts of Israel and Jordan to normalize their relations; leave important universal interests in Jerusalem outside the scope of international attention, and undermine the influence of the UN which should be maintained as a potentially important factor in the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.
The Government of Israel having taken the initiative towards breaking a serious international deadlock hopes that its proposals will secure the support of the Government of the US in the TC and the GA, and that the other parties in this question may thus be encouraged to explore this ground of compromise with us. In presenting this memorandum to the US in advance of its formal submission, I am instructed to say that my government would greatly welcome any intimation of US views or comments on it.”
Two copies draft memorandum pouched tonight to Rockwell.
-
This 16-page document, dated “May 1950” and entitled “Draft of Memorandum To Be Presented by the Government of Israel to the Seventh Session, United Nations Trusteeship Council on the Question of Jerusalem” is not printed. The introduction stated that the Israeli Government would offer full cooperation in a solution of the Jerusalem problem, whereby United Nations responsibility for the Holy Places would be reconciled with the freedom and independence of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. It denounced any implementation of the Statute as involving the United Nations in destroying free and democratic institutions in Jerusalem and imposing against the popular will an authoritarian regime from outside.
The draft memorandum noted that of the 36 sites marked as Holy Places on a map prepared in 1949 by the United Nations, only two were located in Jewish Jerusalem. Any attempt to eliminate the elected institutions and the political rights of Jewish Jerusalem, therefore, could not be justified in terms of universal or religious characteristics affecting the New City. The population of the New City would oppose its separation from the State with which it identified all its activity and sentiment.
Part II of the draft memorandum presented “An Alternative Proposal”, which expanded on the proposals set forth to Department of State officers on April 19.
The memorandum was submitted to the Trusteeship Council by the Israeli Government on May 26 with a letter of the same date addressed by Mr. Eban to the President of the Council. The texts of both documents are printed in U.N. doc. A/1286, p. 29.
↩ - See Mr. Rockwell’s memorandum of conversation of April 19, p. 864.↩