Evening star., 1949-12-11
The Jerusalem Decision

NOW CnaC Cne UnlCed NaClOnS Generdl
Assembly has voted Overwhelmingly in
| favor of placing Jerusalem and its environs
under permanent and complete interna-
tional control, the world can only hope
| that all parties concerned - particularly
Israel and Jordan-will cooperate, with
| good will and sincerity, in an effort to
make the project work.
Hope to one side, however, the realities
strongly suggest that the Assembly-with
more than two-thirds of its members saying
"aye"-has made serious mistake in
voting to internationalize the Holy City.
At any rate, there is ample reason to fear
that in trying to effectuate its decision
the U. N. will run into great deal Of
trouble, suffer a loss of prestige and be
obliged-in due course-to reconsider the
situation and work out another way of
dealing with it.
There are several reasons why this inter-
naturalization plan gives rise to numerous
misgivings. To begin with, its largest
groups of supporters-the Arab states, the
Soviet bloc and the Latin American men,
bers with some exceptions among the lat
ter)-seem to have paid scant attention to
the question of whether 1t is really work.
able or not. Instead, the Arabs and the
Russians have been motivated largely by
considerations of power politics, while the
Latins have been Influenced by a Catholic
conviction that the protection of Jeru-
salems holy places-sacred alike to Mos
lem, Christian and JeW-requireS that the
city and the surrounding area be turned
over completely to the rule of the U. N.
OF course, If Israel and Jordan-which is
kind of maverick among the Arab states
and which the Soviet veto has excluded
from the U. N.-were willing to give up the
sections Of the city they now hold, inter-
naturalization might be carried out with
out extraordinary difficulties But even if
that were the case, even If the best of
circumstances prevailed, there would still
be reason to question the wisdom of the
project. For why should the United
Nations undertake the heavy and costly
responsibility OF establishing Jerusalem as
a separate state within the Holy Land?
Why should it assume the burden of gov
erning and policing an area whose activi-
ties and population are intimately and
inextricably associated with the surround
ing Israelis and Arabs?
But If the trusteeship idea thus seems
highly questionable even in the best of
circumstances, 1t becomes far more dubious
when viewed In the light of the circum-
stances that actually prevail. Those cir
cumstances are anything but good, the
chief one being that both Israel and Jordan
appear to be united in their determination
not to surrender the sovereignty they now
exercise in the sections of the city they
occupy. How then is the U. N. going to
enforce the Assembly decision? How is it
going to take over Jerusalem? What can
it do without further aggravating the sit
uation?
The questions seem to answer themselves.
Without arms and administrative and
financial wherewithal, the United Nations
will be fortunate in the extreme if it does
not soon find itself In q crisis of sorts
because Of its vote on Jerusalem. Every
thing considered, the chances look better
than even that 1t will yet have to reverse
itself and adopt strictly limited form of
Decentralization, along the lines advo-
Gated by Britain, the United States and
several other co11ntrjos