Letter from Frederick H. Boland to Joseph P. Walshe (Holy See)

My dear Ambassador,
As stated in our telegram No. 9¹ the Minister took steps to satisfy himself, before de facto recognition was accorded to Israel, that the Israel Government were prepared to accept the principle of the international control of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and district.

This was done by means of enquiry through the Israeli representative in London and the Israeli Ambassador in Washington. I attach, for your information, a copy of the report we received from Seán Nunan of his conversation with the Israeli Ambassador.²

Everything that could be reasonably done at the present stage, therefore, was done before de facto recognition was accorded. Actually, of course, we were one of the last States to grant recognition. By the time we took the step, forty-two other States had already acted. Of these, twenty-three had already given de jure recognition. This number includes the United States, Russia, the Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe, Australia and most of the South American countries. The other nineteen had only accorded de facto recognition. Among this number were Great Britain, France, the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Commonwealth countries other than Australia.

I have sent you already, I think, a note of the conversation I had with the French Minister. We gather that Britain, France and other Western European countries are withholding de jure recognition until a number of questions, including the international control of the Holy Places, have been agreed in detail with the Israeli Government. In fact, of course, although the Israeli Government have accepted the principle of international control, there is still wide room for argument as to the precise form which the international control should take. The present Israeli idea seems to be that Jerusalem and district should be placed under United Nations trusteeship, the trusteeship for the old city being given to Transjordania and the trusteeship for the new city and the surrounding district being given to Israel. This will certainly not be generally acceptable. The essential point is, however, that the Israeli Government does accept the principle of a guarantee and supervision by the United Nations of the inviolability and freedom of access to the Holy Places, and the only question outstanding is how this guarantee and supervision are to be administered in practice. Not being a member of the United Nations, we will hardly get much opportunity of coming in on the discussions about this point. But, in the meantime, we can, if the Government so decides, exert an indirect pressure by withholding the de jure recognition which the Israeli Foreign Minister has already solicited.