784.00/1–1154: Despatch
No. 763
The Consul at Jerusalem (Tyler) to the Department of State
No. 129
Ref:
- Dept’s CA-3150 December 11, 1953
Subject:
- Internationalization of Jerusalem
Summary
General Dayan, Chief of Staff, Israel Defense Forces, has informed me that subject to the definition of demilitarization of Jerusalem, he believed Israel would not only consider it favorably but had already discussed it. The Vatican retreat, if true, is most startling of revised thinking on this problem. Jordan has taken a far more open stand against internationalization; Colonel Eddy, former American Minister to Saudi Arabia has changed his mind and is now against internationalization as is the majority of the Palestine Refugee Political Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Izzat Tannous in Beirut. One obstacle to settlement of the issue is Israel’s defiant move of her Foreign Office (Con despatch 10, July 14, 1953).1 If the problem is settled by keeping the city divided as now Israel will again be boosted in her self-righteousness and Arabs will have another reason to deplore United Nations and Western inability to make Israel conform to any standards other than Israel’s own desires.
- 1)
On a visit to Jerusalem January 2 General Dayan and his wife and three children paid us a visit. Knowing how much Mrs. Dayan loves Jerusalem I asked the General privately whether there would ever be any possibility of moving the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces to the city. I recalled that the number of troops in both sides of Jerusalem was limited by the Armistice Agreement with Jordan and wondered if complete demilitarization took place whether that would improve the chances of his coming here to live. Dayan replied that depending on the definition of demilitarization he felt Israel would agree to it and in fact had already been discussed.
[Page 1473]“If you ever tell anyone that the Chief of Staff, whose job it is to defend Israel and its government, ever suggested the demilitarization of the capital, I’ll deny it,” he warned me smiling.
I have no idea how Jordan would take such a proposal. Guessing, however, from the increased preparations the Arab Legion has taken in Jerusalem and especially around Mount Scopus, I doubt Jordan would be willing to trust Israel promises of demilitarization.
- 2)
- On November 7, 1953, Monsignor MacMahon called on me in my office. No hint of the Vatican proposal of demilitarization seems to have come to him, or if it had I obtained the impression that Monsignor MacMahon would stoutly maintain his stand for a corpus separatum. The same is true of all the Roman Catholic clergy I know here with the possible exception of His Paternity, the Custos of the Holy Places (Franciscan Order). He paid a New Year’s call on me on January 4 and brought up the question of the internationalization of Jerusalem. I said I did not know what the future would be nor of any plans being made but it appeared that the present division of the city would continue for a long time. He agreed.
- 3)
Jordan, apparently, is returning to her original stand of unconditionally opposing internationalization. When the Jordan Prime Minister returned from the Arab League Political Committee meeting in Cairo last September he told an AP correspondent that Jordan continues as before to oppose vigorously the internationalization of Jerusalem.
“Events have shown that the Arab States must hasten to change their attitude on this question and to work together to preserve the Arabism of the Holy City,” he added (Amman Joint Weeka No. 2 September 16, 1953).2
This is in contrast to former Prime Minister Abdul Huda’s statement in the earlier part of the year that while Jordan did not favor the internationalization of Jerusalem it would take no steps without consultation with the Arab League.
- 4)
- Another change of opinion which may be noted for the record is
that of Colonel William A.
Eddy, former American Minister to Saudi Arabia, and
well known for his espousal of the Arab cause. Writing from Beirut,
where he is political advisor to Tap Line, in a latter dated August
5, 1953 to the Honorable Adlai Stevenson, Colonel Eddy states:
“As you will see from the enclosed, I no longer believe any useful purpose can be served by attempts to internationalize Jerusalem. To that extent, the pamphlet I gave you in Beirut is out of date. Too much milk-toast has floated under the bridges of the UN for the Arabs to have any confidence in a UN Commission ruling Jerusalem.”
- 5)
- The enclosure to which he refers reports the majority opinion of the Palestine Refugee Political Committee under the chairmanship of Izzat Tannous as believing that the interest of Jerusalem is no longer “either possible or desirable.” (See enclosure No. 1)3
- 6)
- The Islamic Congress for the Palestine Question (Contel 98, Dec. 8 and Con despatch 112, Dec. 11, 1953)4 which recently met in Jerusalem also denounced the internationalization of the city. Officially the reason given (page 3 reference despatch and resolution No. 6) was that the internationalization of Jerusalem was “a conspiracy against the Moslem world”. Fear of the city becoming wholly Jewish was also one of the reasons behind this resolution, however, with perhaps a certain amount of pressure from the Jordan delegation.
Comment:
The above shows the trend of opinion away from internationalization. But whatever solution is finally made of the problem it appears to me essential for the preservation of the Holy Places and for a sense of security among Christians regarding the safe-guarding of those Holy Places, to have Jerusalem demilitarized. The present seems an appropriate time to initiate discussions. The UN resolution is still on the books and in spite of the Arab economic blockade of Israel, Jordan keeps Mandelbaum Gate open for the passage of pilgrims to the Holy Places and the passage of United Nations personnel in the area as well as members of the Consular Corps in deference to that resolution. But Jordan’s hardening attitude may mean an attempt on her part to have the Arab States acquiesce in her sovereignty over the Arab half of Jerusalem and perhaps a closing of Mandelbaum Gate, the only entry into Israel by land for persons without diplomatic passports. Thus discussions on demilitarization or Christian interests in Jerusalem would have to be taken with two states insisting on their sovereignty over the two parts of Jerusalem and more difficult than is now the case when theoretically and legally (though not actually) Jerusalem is an international city.
If Jordan would agree to demilitarization it is almost certain the discussions and agreement would have to be made without any publicity. Therefore Israel should be warned in advance that she must keep knowledge of any preliminary talks or negotiations secret and resist the temptation of trumpeting abroad her willingness [Page 1475] to demilitarize her own capital and blaming Jordan as usual for blocking every effort toward peace.