Foreign Relations of the United States, 1951, The Near East and Africa, Volume V

IO Files

Department of State Position Paper¹

confidential
SD/A/C.1/372

[Washington,] October 12, 1951.

The Question of Jerusalem

the problem

The problem is to determine the position which the Delegation should take on the question of an international regime for Jerusalem.

While the Assembly may not have the question of Jerusalem on its agenda at the outset of the sessions the facts: (1) that Jerusalem has been a topic of discussion at the last four Assemblies, particularly in connection with the general Palestine question; and (2) that there have been some indications from several delegations of their continued interest in an international regime for the protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem, tend to indicate that it may become a matter for discussion.

recommendations

1. The basic position of the Delegation should be to support such a solution of the Jerusalem question as will be acceptable to Israel and Jordan and meet with general concurrence by the world community.

2. If the question is raised in informal discussions the Delegation should indicate that it does not believe that the question can be profitably discussed in this Assembly, since the criteria in Recommendation 1 are not likely to be met, but the Delegation should not actively oppose consideration of this problem if other delegations indicate a sincere desire to bring the matter before the Assembly.

3. The Delegation may indicate that it is willing to participate in informal discussions on any reasonable plans which may be brought forward.

4. While attempting to discourage proposals which lack the elements of acceptability set forth in Recommendation 1 the Delegation should maintain a flexible position on proposals for Jerusalem which may be advanced by other delegations until such time as there appears to be a genuine likelihood of achieving the criteria set forth in Recommendation 1.

5. If any proposal is brought to a vote the Delegation should not support it if it lacks the elements of acceptability indicated in Recommendation 1.

comment

The foregoing recommendations are based on the following factors:

1. The primary objectives in any consideration of the Jerusalem question are that a solution is acceptable to the main parties interested, i.e. Israel and Jordan and that this solution can obtain the necessary support from the other Members of the UN. On the basis of past history, the majority of the UN Members favor a far more extreme form of internationalization than either Israel or Jordan have thus far indicated that they could accept. We have not yet seen any good prospect of reconciling these positions and unless, for unforeseen political reasons, either Israel or Jordan decides to accept a more extreme form of international organization than they have now indicated, we can see no prospect of any reconciliation at this Assembly.

2. In view of the unlikelihood of reconciling the views of Israel and Jordan, on the one hand, and the views of a large number of other nations, on the other, concerning the extent of an international regime for Jerusalem; in view of the obviously yet unsettled situation in the Palestine area; and in view of the fact that there are many other more pressing problems before the General Assembly, we may indicate that we do not believe that the Jerusalem question can be profitably discussed in this Assembly since overall agreement is highly unlikely and any proposal not acceptable to Israel and Jordan could not be put into effect, nor would it contribute to the peace essential to the Palestine area.

3. In line with our desire to be constructive in all General Assembly consideration of this problem, we may indicate that we are willing to participate in informal discussions with other Delegations over any reasonable plans which may be put forward and that we welcome any proposals which may be conducive to a solution of this problem. It would be hoped that our participation in informal discussion carried on for the most part outside of meetings might reveal a solution which would satisfy our criteria for acceptance so that, should occasion demand, we could publicly support such a solution.

4. The closest to a practicable solution which might have met the criteria for acceptability was the Swedish plan submitted at the last General Assembly.² This plan had backing from Israel and the indicated sympathy of a large number of influential delegations including the U.S. Delegations.

For the text of this plan and details regarding consideration given to it by the Fifth General Assembly see Jerusalem background book.³

5. On the basis of experience in past Assembly Sessions and barring an unexpected change in the position of Israel and Jordan we see no point in supporting any schemes for the internationalization advocated by such proposals as the special report of the Trusteeship Council presented at the last General Assembly, and the Jerusalem Statute prepared by the Palestine Commission for consideration at the Fourth General Assembly, since all of these proposals were unacceptable to Israel or Jordan, or both whether or not they had the necessary majority support from the other Members of the UN.⁴

1. Prepared as a position paper for the U.S. Delegation at the Sixth Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
2. U.N Doc. A/AC.38/L.63.
3. Collection of United Nations documents compiled for use by the U.S. Delegation at the General Assembly; copy in IO Files: Lot 71 D 44.
4. For documentation on these subjects, see Foreign Relations, 1950, vol. v, pp. 658 ff. The question of an international regime for Jerusalem was not placed on the agenda of the Sixth Regular Session of the General Assembly.