784.00/12–3153: Despatch
No. 759
The Ambassador in Jordan (Mallory) to the Department of State
No. 232
Subject:
- Comment on Vatican Attitude Toward Internationalization of Jerusalem
The Embassy has read with a great deal of interest the Department’s Instruction No. CA-3150 of December 11, 1953, and its enclosures with regard to the views of the Holy See in connection with a possible demilitarization of a zone within a radius of 50 kilometers from Jerusalem. This suggestion has apparently been put forth by the Holy See as a provisional measure to remove “imminent danger” to the holy places.
However desirable the proposal may seem it appears to the Embassy that it is divorced from the realities of the existing political situation. There has been no lessening of the tensions which exist between Jordan and Israel over the past several years. On the contrary, owing to the Qibya incident and to other incidents well known to the Department bitterness against Israel in this country has reached greater proportions than ever before. It is believed to be unlikely that Jordan would consider the demilitarized zone proposal.
The Embassy notes that informal discussions with U.S. military officials indicate that demilitarization of the area recommended would affect Jordan and Israel equally. Without presuming to question the professional views of the U.S. military, the Embassy ventures to doubt that either the Government of Jordan or the Arab Legion would see the matter in that light. It seems possible to the Embassy that Jordan would feel that the superior road system, particularly the subsidiary road system, of Israel would place that [Page 1469] country in a militarily favorable position in the event of the outbreak of hostilities between the two countries. A circle with a 50 kilometer radius drawn from Jerusalem would appear to take in the heartland of Jordan. It would include Nablus to the north, Hebron to the south, and would take in practically all of southwest Jordan. This seems rather a large proportion of Jordan. Israel too would be precluded from maintaining military installations in many of its most important areas.
The formulas advanced by Brazil for the definitive settlement of the question of the zone of Jerusalem and of peace between Jordan and Israel seem to the Embassy equally unrealistic at this time. The Embassy does not consider that it would be possible now or in the foreseeable future to establish Jerusalem and its environs as a true international zone without a resort to force of arms. Insofar as a peace treaty is concerned the views not only of Jordan but of the other Arab States have been made clear so often and so recently that comment hardly seems necessary.
Andrew G. Lynch
Counselor of Embassy