320/8–2950
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Officer in Charge of Palestine, Israel, and Jordan Affairs (Rockwell)
Subject: Preparation for General Assembly—Conversation with Israeli Ambassador
| Participants: | Mr. Aubrey S. Eban, Ambassador-Designate of Israel1 |
| Mr. Moshe Keren, Counselor, Embassy of Israel | |
| NEA—Mr. McGhee | |
| NEA—Mr. Howard | |
| NE—Mr. Kopper | |
| NE—Mr. Rockwell |
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11. Jerusalem:
Mr. Eban said that he thought the important thing concerning the GA discussion of Israel this year was the parliamentary situation. He foresaw a distinct possibility that no solution would be forthcoming from the GA. It would be an excellent thing if the Assembly could achieve a solution this session. Generally speaking, private and public opinion, Mr. Eban thought, favored the Israeli proposal. Several of the governments which opposed the 1949 GA Resolution thought the Israeli proposition looked good. However, the Latin-American governments frankly said that they would take no position without receiving the views of the Vatican. Israeli soundings showed that the Vatican was determined to maintain its support for full internationalization, even though realizing that this was impossible of fulfillment. Mr. Eban thought that the Vatican could command enough votes to frustrate any other plan in the GA. He believed that the UN must face the fact that with the passage of time the possibilities of UN representation and functions in Jerusalem were growing more remote. If delegations took upon themselves the responsibility of acting so that a deadlock was produced, they must also accept the responsibility of lessening chances of UN representation in Jerusalem.
Mr. Eban said that the UK felt that the Israeli proposition went too far. The UK would include under UN supervision only those Holy Places not under the actual control of governments representing one of the major world faiths. Thus, under the UK scheme, Jewish Holy Places in Israeli-controlled territory and Moslem Holy Places in Jordan-controlled territory would not fall under UN supervision. According to Mr. Eban, Jordan had said that it would not object to periodic UN inspection of the Jordanian control of the Holy Places, but that the Israeli proposal for UN control of the Holy Places went too far.
Mr. Eban added that Mr. Schumann had told the Israelis that the French Government thought that the Israeli proposal should be expanded to include the Holy Places in Nazareth. If the Israelis would agree to this, Mr. Schumann said that he would undertake to attempt to modify the Vatican’s position. The Israeli Government was prepared to make this concession, said Mr. Eban.
Mr. Eban continued by saying that if anything like the Israeli plan was to get through the Assembly this fall, high-level sponsorship was [Page 984] necessary. If the US and the UK took a passive attitude there would be no solution this year. The US and the UK should introduce a resolution embodying the Israeli suggestion and press Jordan to accept this solution. Israel would welcome US suggestions for the improvement of the Israeli proposal.
Mr. Eban then referred to the question of improving the water supply in Jerusalem. He wished to assure the Department that the Israeli Government had no intention of making any political hay out of an allocation of Ex-Im Bank funds for the improvement of the Jerusalem water supply, if approval of such an allocation could be obtained. Mr. McGhee pointed out that there were important political elements involved in this problem and that the Ex-Im Bank Was governed by very strict rules in allocating funds under international loans.
12. Palestine Refugees:
With regard to this item, Mr. McGhee said that the US supported the basic principle that those refugees who wished to return should be allowed to do so and that those who did not should be resettled and compensated for their losses. Mr. Eban remarked that the UN had already done much in the line of resettlement, referring to the Clapp report2 and the activities of PEA. He added that the 1948 resolution was unrealistic as regards refugees, and that a mass return was impossible. If the UN reaffirmed the refugee sections of the 1948 resolution, the Arab resistance to refugee resettlement would increase. Mr. Eban thought that the proper method to handle this problem was that it should be discussed by the Arab states and Israel within the context of a general peace settlement.
- Abba Eban presented his credentials as Israeli Ambassador to President Truman on September 5; see Department of State Bulletin, September 18, 1950, p. 459. Note that Mr. Rockwell used Mr. Eban’s former given name in the list of participants in the conversation of August 29.↩
- For documentation on the activities of the United Nations Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, whose Chairman was Gordon Clapp, see Foreign Relations, 1949, vol. vi, pp. 594 ff.↩