68-14,093 BOVIS, Henry Eugene, 1928- THE JERUSALEM QUESTION 1917-1968. The American University, Ph.D., 1968 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by HENRY EUGENE BOVIS 1968 THE JERUSALEM QUESTION B E r r t t SB----------- ■bar H# Eugene Bovis Submitted to the Faculty of the School of International Service of The American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree o f Doctor of Philosophy in International Relations Signatures of Chairman Dates 1 iy68 The American University Washington* D# C. AMERICAN UNIVERSITY library MAY 2 3 1968 WASHINGTON. O. C. 37 SO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would be inappropriate if acknowledgment were not made of the encouragement and assistance given by the chairman and the members of the committee supervising the preparation of this dissertations Dr* Harry N* Howard, Dr* Kerim K* Key, and Dr* Mary E* Bradshaw* I also wish to express my appreciation to Dr* Harold W* Glidden, Dr* James H* Bahti, Mr. Henry Erecht, Miss Gloria Enroth, and former Assistant Secretary of State Raymond A* Hare, who kindly read the draft and offered many helpful suggestions* It should be made clear, however, that the views presented in this dissertation are my own and not necessarily those of the individuals mentioned here nor of the Department of State or the United States Government. In addition, an immense vote of thanks is due my wife, Beatrice, who not only offered many helpful comments but assumed the particularly laborious task of typing both the draft and the final text* Acknowledgment is made of th e perm ission granted by Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd, to quote from The Truth About the Peace Treaties by LLoyd George, the Catholic Association for International Peace to quote from The Int em at ionaliz at ion of Jerusalem, Her Majesty* s Stationery Office to quote from Command Papers 96U, 1708, 1785, 5U79, and 5851*, and the Department of State to quote from telegram 82 of April 25, 1950, from the American Embassy in Amman to the Secretary of State* Grateful acknowledgment is also made of the assistance of the Embassy of I s r a e l in Washington in obtaining a number o f the documents included in Appendix B* TABLE OP CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I , THE RETURN TO CHRISTIAN HANDS Interests of the Big Powers The Holy P laces Q uestion A fter th e War Adoption of the Mandate The Holy Places Commission The Status Quo Maintained I I . JERUSALEM AND THE ARAB-JEWISH PROBLEM The Royal Commission o f 1937 The Royal Commission^ Plan Reaction to the Partition Plan The Abandonment of P a r titio n The Mayoralty Problem in Jerusalem III* THE TRIP TO LIMBO The British Failure The UNSCOP Plan The Resolution of November 29, 19h7 The Draft Statute for Jerusalem Jerusalem in Limbo IV* THE PARTITION OF JERUSALEM The Special Municipal Commissioner CHAPTER Bernadette's Preliminary Proposals Reaction to the Preliminary proposals The Mediator's Report Fait Accompli V. THE U.N. FAILURE The Palestine Conciliation Commission Plan Rejection of the Palestine Conciliation Plan Territorial Internationalization Reaffirmed A Statute for Jerusalem Stalem ate VC. REUNIFICATION Diplomatic Problems The Holy Places aid Religious Affairs During the Partition The Israeli Capture of East Jerusalem The Reunification Measures V II. PROSPECTS FOR SETTLEMENT . The Christian Interest The Muslim Interest The Jew ish I n te r e s t Devices for Solution The Lesson APPENDIX A. Population of Jerusalem 1800-1967 APPENDIX B. Documents Mandate for Palestine v i i APPENDIX B. Documents (continued) PAGE The Palestine (Holy Places) Order-in-Council, 1921* 209 Preamble, Part III, and Part IV of Resolution 181 ( I I ) A Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 29, 191*7 211 Israel Defense Forces Authority in Jerusalem Proclamation No. 1 222 Resolution 19U (III) Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December U , 191*8 22U Israel Defense Forces Authority in Jerusalem Proclamation No. 3 229 A rticle VEII of the IsraeW o rd an ian A rm istice Agreement of April 3» 19U9 230 Resolution 303 (IV) Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9 , 191*9 232 Jerusalem Proclamation of January 23, 1950 231* Statute for the City of Jerusalem 235 Resolution Passed by the Jordanian Parliament Providing for the Unification of the East and West Banks of the Jordan, A pril 21*, 1950 268 Aide Memoire Delivered to the I s r a e l Government on July 9, 1952 by the American Embassy at Tel Aviv 270 Aide Memoire Delivered to the Prime M inister of Jordan on July 5, I960 by the American Embassy a t Amman 271 v i i i APPENDIX B« Documents (continued) PAGE Law and Administration Ordinance (Amendment No* II), 5727-1967 272 M unicipal C orporations Ordinance (Amendment No* 7 ), 5727-1967 273 Protection of Holy Places Law, 5727-1967 27U Jerusalem (Enlargement of Municipal Area) Proclamation, 5727-1967 275 White House Statem ent, June 28, 1967 279 Statement by Department of State Press Spokesman, June 28, 1967 280 Resolution Adopted by the U.N* General Assembly on Ju ly I*, 1967 281 Resolution Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on Ju ly ll*» 1967 282 Statement by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Ju ly U+, 1967 283 Statement by Department of State Press Spokesman, July 15, 1968 ,285 APPENDIX C. Maps '• Boundaries of the Corpus Separatum 287 Jerusalem, Showing Lines of the city Before and After H ostilities of June 1967 288 Principal Holy Places (U.N. Map No. 229, November 191*9) 289 BIBLIOGRAPHY 290 INTRODUCTION Jerusalem holds a place of honor in the hearts of the followers of the three major monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Here is situated the Wailing Wall, a remnant of the western wall of the parvis surrounding the First and Second Temples,1 On the spot where the Temples stood, there are now the Muslim sanctuaries of the Ear am al-Sharif • One of these, the Dome of the Rock, stands over the spot from which tradition says Muhammad made his night journey into Heaven, and consequently Jerusalem is considered by Muslims to be the third most sacred city in the world after Mecca and Medina, Indeed, Muhammad originally taught his followers to pray facing Jerusalem and only later did the Ka'bah replace it. Here in Jerusalem is also situated the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which stands over the supposed sites where Jesus was crucified and buried. Because of these shrines, and these are only the major ones in Jerusalem, men and governments have long taken a special interest in the fate of Jerusalem, The Jerusalem question has two basic aspects: who is to exercise sovereignty over the city itself and how are the Holy Places to be administered? The two aspects of the problem are of course related, but both aspects are not always active at the same time, For almost 700 years prior to World War I, it was primarily the aspect ^In Hebrew, the Wailing Wall is called Hakotel Hamaaravi (Western WaU) and some writers refer to it in English as the Western Wall, For the sake of convenience, the more familiar term, "Wailing Wall”, w ill be used in this study* of the Holy Places that figured in the diplomacy of the European Powers, since Jerusalem was situ a te d a fte r 1517 w ith in th e Ottoman Empire and before 1517 within the confines of other Muslim, empires. World War I, however, ended the Ottoman Qnpire and placed Jerusalem once more in Christian hands, and the question of sovereignty became active again, along with the question of the administration of the Holy Places, Even so, governments often attach more importance to one aspect than the other, as this study w ill show. In some cases, governments have used the Jerusalem question to support or advance other interests of a more secular nature, From World War I until 1936, the Jerusalem question was pri­ marily a European question, with Great Britain, France, Italy, and the Vatican’, in one combination or another, as the main contenders. By 1936, Palestine had become the object of a struggle between two nation­ alisms, Zionism and Palestinian Arab nationalism, and Jerusalem had come to be considered by the two main contenders as a prize for the victor. In solutions proposed after 1936, the Mandatory and other European Powers sought to remove Jerusalem from this context and to give it a separate regime. This, in fact, was the intent of the Palestine partition plan adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 19U7, However, th e U.N, se rio u sly misjudged th e in te n s ity o f th e Arab-Zionist struggle by assuming that a solution could be inposed from the outside against the wishes of one or both of the contenders without the use of force. By the end of 191*8, Jerusalem had become primarily an Arab- Israel question* To be sure, other interests s till figured but the main contenders were no longer European, or even Christian for that matter* Jerusalem was then divided between Jordan and Israel and the prevailing situation was not considered unsatisfactory at the time by either* However, the inability of the Christian Powers, particularly the Catholic Powers, to recognize the changed nature of the Jerusalem ques­ tion and their own diminished role in it prevented the U.N* from giving the arrangement the blessing of the international community* After a life of 19 years, this arrangement has crumbled and the question now needs a new arrangement* Whatever that arrangement turns out to be, it w ill clearly be made within the Arab-Israel context or perhaps, like the previous one, only in the Israel-Jordan c ontext* Other inter­ ests w