501.BB Palestine/6–2548: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting United States Representative at the United Nations (Jessup)
438. Line you took as expressed in first para, your 819, June 25,1 seems adequately to cover problem raised by Eban with regard to seating Representative of PGI in SC, if in fact, JA has ceased to exist as political body.
You may tell Eban that your line of response to him has been approved by this govt. As a matter of friendly counsel you may wish to suggest to him that it might do his cause more harm than good if question were made too much of an issue in Council at this time. We have in mind that from July 1 Manuilsky of the Ukraine will be Council Chairman and that he might be delighted to magnify this matter out of all proportion to suit ulterior motives of USSR.
You may tell Eban that, if issue comes to vote before Council, as govt which has recognized de facto authority of PGI, we will vote in favor of seating representative of PGI in SC in lieu of former representative of JA. However, if it seems evident that motion to this end will not receive necessary 7 affirmative votes, Eban will wish to consider whether some compromise language might not be preferable. We have in mind in this connection language taken from GA resolution of May 14 which speaks of “local and community authorities in Palestine”. It might be possible for SC to seat Eban as “representative of Jewish authorities in Palestine” and he would still be free to style himself as representative of PGI. This is, however, merely a suggestion for his own consideration.
Although Eban states that JA has ceased to exist as political body we note that in Jerusalem JA is spokesman of Jewish interests there. It seems desirable for this situation to continue, since Jerusalem is not within state of Israel. Accordingly, Council should not take such action as might exclude possibility of hearing a representative of JA when matters concerning city of Jerusalem are under consideration.
- Not printed; the first paragraph reported that Mr. Eban had sought the views of the United States concerning the instructions of his government to raise in the Security Council the question of his status as representative of the Provisional Government of Israel rather than of the Jewish Agency. “We told him we had anticipated this question might arise when SC commenced reconsideration of Palestine question immediately following close of special GA. At that time our view was there would be no reason to make an issue of this matter and that on basis precedent of Indonesian Republic, it seemed reasonable for us to agree to changing status of JA representative. The seating of a representative of the PGI of course had nothing whatever to do with the question of recognition of Israel. The question of recognition was one which individual governments, members of SC would have to, decide for themselves.” (501.BB Palestine/6–2548)↩