Office of the Historian

784.00/10–2450: Telegram

The Minister in Jordan (Drew) to the Secretary of State

confidential
Amman, October 24, 1950—2 p. m.

82. As Department may have learned from UK at UN, British Minister here has obtained acceptance in principle subject to certain reservations of King and Council of Ministers of Sweden–Netherlands draft resolution on Jerusalem. Jordan observer Ahmad Tukan is fully authorized to accept it on behalf of his government. While he has been instructed to propose addition of provision regarding exchange of Jewish and Arab quarters in Jerusalem, it is not believed that [Page 1036] Jordan will press this point as it was introduced by one Cabinet member at meeting where resolution was agreed to and was not urged by other members of government. Principal modifications to be proposed by Jordan are:

[Here follow six principal modifications.]

Kirkbride tells me that King Abdullah welcomed proposed draft enthusiastically and hopes that its adoption may effect final settlement of Jerusalem issue. I gathered that Cabinet also took constructive attitude.

In event our delegation takes active role in Jerusalem issue, I am confident it will find Jordan observer Ahmad Tukan intelligent in approach and cooperative in attitude.1

Department pass London, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, USUN. Sent Department 82, repeated info London 31, Tel Aviv 26, Jerusalem 32, USUN 3.

Drew

  1. Embassy Tel Aviv, on November 2, reported information from an official of the Israeli Foreign Office that the Israeli Government regarded the Netherlands Swedish plan for Jersusalem with general favor (telegram 264, 357.AC/11–250).

    Legation Amman informed the Department on November 19 that the Jordanian Cabinet had put aside the demand for the exchange of territory but had raised a new series of objections to the proposed resolution. It also advised that the “King believed genuinely desire solution along lines of proposed resolution but unwilling to override cabinet.” (Telegram 96, 784.00/11–1950) The same telegram advised that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and other Cabinet members had expressed to Minister Drew their “general lack of enthusiasm for any action on Jerusalem at this time.” The Minister, for his part, refrained from any expression of views “other than hope that solution satisfactory to all concerned would be reached this GA session.”

    ↩