Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V

320/10–1050

Position Paper Prepared in the Department of State for the Fifth Regular Session of the General Assembly¹

confidential

[Washington,] October 10, 1950.

SD/A/C.1/342/Rev 1

Question of Jerusalem

the problem

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

The Assembly will have before it a resolution and a report from the Trusteeship Council transmitting the text of the Statute approved by the Council pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Fourth Session of the Assembly. The Council’s resolution states that: “it appears that neither government [Israel or Jordan]² is prepared to collaborate in the implementation of the Statute as approved by the Trusteeship Council.” Accordingly, it is anticipated that a general discussion of the question of Jerusalem will again take place at the Assembly.

recommendations

1. The basic position of the delegation should be to encourage 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. Accordingly, the Delegation should oppose any plan which does not have the elements of acceptability indicated in Recommendation 1. The Delegation should oppose any proposal to implement the Statute drawn up pursuant to the resolution of the Fourth General Assembly,³ since this plan is manifestly unacceptable to Israel and Jordan. Similarly, the Delegation should oppose any new schemes for internationalization of Jerusalem in a degree comparable to that involved in last year’s resolution on the grounds that such schemes are unrealistic and incapable of gaining the acceptance of Israel and Jordan.

3. The Delegation should maintain a flexible position on other types of proposals for Jerusalem which may be advanced by other delegations until such time as there appears to be a good opportunity of reaching agreement on a generally acceptable solution. Consequently, the Delegation should not take a leading position, and particularly should not sponsor any proposal which is not clearly likely to receive general acceptance. However, the United States should urge all parties to take a moderate approach and to endeavor to reconcile differences on the Jerusalem question. On this basis, the Delegation should freely participate in informal discussions of any reasonable plans which may be brought forward. These might include, for instance, such middle ground proposals as the Swedish-Netherlands plan and the Garreau plan, if any of them, or variations of them are brought forward for consideration. With regard to the suggestions put forward by the Government of Israel, in its memorandum to the Trusteeship Council dated May 26, 1950,⁴ the Delegation should take the position that if Israel and Jordan should agree on this or any other plan, the other Members should give this important fact careful consideration with a view to seeing whether the proposal in question could be used as a basis for efforts toward a solution acceptable to a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.

4. If the 1949 resolution on Jerusalem continues to be unacceptable to Israel and Jordan and if it appears impossible for the Assembly to reach agreement on any plan acceptable to Israel, Jordan, and the world community, the Delegation should consider whether broad agreement, including the concurrence of Israel and Jordan, could not be reached on a resolution reiterating the United Nations interest in the status of Jerusalem and calling upon the Secretary-General to send a UN representative to Jerusalem, with staff, to represent the United Nations interest in the City pending further decisions of the UN on the status of the City.

We should take a strongly affirmative attitude that it is possible to reconcile differences and achieve a reasonable solution which will satisfy the main objectives of all parties in interest. However, we would be best advised not to come out at an early stage in support of any particular plan. Last year we helped prepare and supported the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s proposals, which we considered a reasonable basis for a solution. These proposals gained little support and we do not believe therefore that anything would be gained by continuing to support the proposals themselves this year, although use might be made of certain of the elements contained therein, other than those relating to the concept of a corpus separatum or which might tend to produce a complex administrative structure. In addition, we have little reason to believe that our strong support of any particular plan would greatly influence other delegations on a matter of such religious and emotional value. On the contrary, the result might be in the opposite direction. We can, however, constantly advocate that all reasonable plans be carefully examined by all parties concerned and that every effort should be made to get such agreed modifications as will permit a solution. We should participate in such discussions and should feel free to talk with the sponsors and other parties in interest on any number of alternative plans that might be brought forward. This procedure, carried on for the most part outside of meetings, might reveal a solution which could gain general acceptance.

Undoubtedly, the best prospect of a solution would arise if Israel and Jordan should agree on a plan. If this occurred, it might be expected to be somewhat along the lines of the Israeli proposal. Certain countries would in these circumstances probably attempt to insist upon a greater degree of internationalization. The United States should in such case use its influence to further a solution which was acceptable to the parties and to the world community. If a solution appeared possible based on Israel–Jordan agreement on a proposal along the lines of the Israeli plan, we should be prepared to support the probable desires of some delegations to have the regime of the Holy Places extended beyond those places indicated in the Israeli plan and made to include other “religious buildings and sites in the area of Jerusalem and the routes giving immediate access to them,” as prescribed in previous proposals. We should also be prepared to support further reasonable measures looking toward a greater degree of internationalization, if we believe the parties will accept or acquiesce in them and if by the adoption of such measures the acceptance of a statute by a majority of the General Assembly can be assured.

In view of the possible inability of the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council to effect a resolution of the problem of some sort of international regime for Jerusalem and the Holy Places, the standing guidance to the Delegation would appear to be that approved by the President last year to the effect that if the General Assembly was unable to agree upon detailed and definite arrangements, the Delegation should support some other form of temporary arrangements for the Jerusalem area which, pending further consideration by the Assembly, would provide the necessary protection of and access to the Holy Places under UN supervision and which would offer further opportunity for an agreement which would be acceptable not only to Israel and Jordan but also to the other members of the United Nations (Gadel 110 November 21, 1949).

1. The authorship of this paper is not indicated. Its origins, however, may be traced back to the draft prepared by James M. Ludlow of the Office of United Nations Political and Security Affairs on August 31. The draft was given control number SD/A/C.1/342 on September 11. The changes in the revision of October 10, through the first paragraph of recommendation numbered 4, are those of language. The original draft concluded with five numbered comments. The comments, as such, have been omitted from the revision but the sense of some of the comments has been incorporated into a greatly amplified recommendation 4. A carbon copy of the original draft is filed in IO Files, Lot 74 D 440, Committee 1 Originals.
2. Brackets appear in the source text.
3. The resolution of December 9, 1949.
4. See telegram 443, May 19, from New York and footnote 1 thereto, p. 903.