784A.00/6–550
Memorandum of Conversations, by Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs
Subject: Status of Jerusalem
| Participants: | Mr. Gabriel Rosaz, Attaché, French Embassy |
| Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation (separately) | |
| ANE, Mr. Rockwell |
Problem: To discuss with Messrs. Rosaz and Rifai the future status of Jerusalem.
Action Required: To consider what US action, if any, is required in view of developments.
Action Assigned to: ANE, UND, UNP.
Mr. Rosaz called under instructions to say that the French Government was favorably impressed by the recent Israeli proposal to the Trusteeship Council on the future status of Jerusalem. The French Government thought, however, that the Israeli proposal did not go far enough and that it should be expanded to provide an international curatorship for religious sites in Palestine not included in the list of Holy Places. Mr. Rosaz said that the French Government wondered whether the US Government agreed that it would be useful to approach Israel at the present time to persuade it to enlarge its proposal in the above sense. The French Government thought, moreover, that it would be desirable to approach the British Government in an effort to persuade it to urge the Jordan Government to exhibit a more cooperative attitude toward the settlement of the Jerusalem problem. In fact the French Ambassador in London had been instructed to make a démarche to the British Foreign Office in this sense. Mr. Rosaz wondered whether the US Government would wish to do the same. Generally speaking, the French Government wanted to know what the [Page 919] attitude of the US Government concerning the Israeli proposal was.
I told Mr. Rosaz that we had informally advised the Israelis that we considered their proposal a forward step in the direction of an agreed solution. I said that we did not, however, consider it desirable to enter at this time upon a substantive discussion of the proposal with the Israelis. I added that our preliminary point of view was that tactically speaking it would be more advantageous if amendments to the Israeli proposal could be made during the General Assembly session, rather than to have the proposal expanded to the limit to which the Israelis would agree before the Assembly met and then to have it presented to the Assembly as a final Israeli position. Our present thinking was that it might be possible for several interested delegations to get together in the Fifth General Assembly in an effort to get through a sensible resolution on Jerusalem. I said that my personal view was that such a resolution might take the Israeli proposal as a starting point.
Generally speaking, we did not consider it wise to engage in consultations of this nature with the Israelis or with other delegations at this point, particularly in view of the fact that our belief is that the Trusteeship Council does not have authority to consider proposals alternate to the instructions given by the Fourth General Assembly. (I gathered that the French Government had in mind approaching the Israeli Government prior to the June 12 meeting of the Council.) Mr. Rosaz agreed that it would be much wiser to await the General Assembly before engaging in consultations with the Israeli Government.
With regard to Jordan’s attitude, I explained that we had informally suggested to the Jordan Legation here that it would be helpful if the Jordan Government were to adopt a less intransigent attitude concerning Jerusalem, especially vis-à-vis the Trusteeship Council. We had also informally suggested the same thing to the British Embassy. I did not believe, therefore, that we would wish to make a formal approach in this sense to the British Government. Mr. Rosaz agreed that this would be unnecessary in view of the informal steps which the Department had already taken.
Abdel Monem Rifai invited me to lunch today in order to discuss the status of Jerusalem. He reported that he had written to his brother, Samir Rifai Pasha,1 and to the Jordanian Foreign Minister after our discussion several weeks ago in which I had suggested that it might [Page 920] be helpful if Jordan could adopt a less intransigent attitude vis-à-vis the Trusteeship Council concerning Jerusalem. I had mentioned that the President of the Council had not even received a reply to his letter to the Jordanian Government transmitting the statute drawn up by the Council.
Mr. Rifai said that today he had received a letter from the Foreign Minister which made no reference to a more polite Jordanian attitude toward the Trusteeship Council. The letter, however, said that the Foreign Minister, Samir Rifai Pasha, and King Abdullah all felt that the idea of an international curatorship for the Holy Places, which Abdel Monem Rifai and I had informally discussed at the above meeting, was one which merited full consideration. The Jordan Government, however, could not make any commitments concerning such a scheme until it knew more about it. Mr. Rifai noted that since our discussion the Israelis had made a proposal along these lines. He said he would be interested to have a copy of this proposal, and I promised to send it to him.
Mr. Rifai then asked what I thought Jordan should do in the forthcoming meeting of the Council. He emphasized that Jordan would not have ready any kind of counterproposal. I suggested that the Jordanian representative might reiterate his country’s opposition to the full internationalization of Jerusalem but leave the door open to a possible compromise by stating that the Jordan Government currently had under consideration a possible other course of action. What this other course of action might be would be a matter for decision by the Jordan Government, but I suggested that one line which Amman might consider might be to suggest that the international curatorship for the Holy Places be extended to include religious sites located in Israeli territory. This might have the benefit of removing the one-sided nature of the Israeli proposal and might indicate a Jordanian willingness to compromise, which would encourage the GA delegations interested in a moderate solution. There were doubtless other proposals which Jordan might wish to make.
Generally speaking, I said that we thought it was essential to reach some agreed solution during the Fifth General Assembly and to get the Jerusalem question off the UN agenda. This could best be done, I thought, if the GA delegations saw the general lines of a solution which both the Jordanians and the Israelis would be prepared to accept, and yet which might go a long way to meet the views of the international community. I urged upon Mr. Rifai the necessity that his Government adopt a more constructive attitude in the Assembly-He agreed that this would be a good idea, particularly if the result was [Page 921] a solution which did not in any way imperil Jordanian sovereignty in the Old City. He promised that he would convey the sense of our conversation to his Government.
In response to Mr. Rifai’s question as to when the US was going to recognize the union of Arab Palestine and Jordan, I explained the Department’s position, stating that it was not the custom of this country to issue formal statements of recognition every time a foreign country changed its territorial area. The union of Arab Palestine and Jordan had been brought about as a result of the will of the people and the US accepted the fact that Jordanian sovereignty had been extended to the new area. Mr. Rifai said he had not realized this and that he was very pleased to learn that the US did in fact recognize the union.
- Jordanian Minister of Court.↩