Letter from Joseph P. Walshe to Seán Nunan (Dublin)
(Secret and Confidential)

My dear Secretary,
I received Mr. O'Driscoll's minute 305/81 of the 16th April¹ and enclosures concerning de jure recognition of the State of Israel. The minute written on 16th April was sent from the Department on the 19th and arrived here on the 23rd. I should like to emphasize once more the importance of sending letters of the slightest importance by Air Mail, more especially when time is an essential factor, as it is in this instance (see the end of the last paragraph).

My task was not made easier by the minute and draft memorandum, since neither gives a cogent reason for de jure recognition here and now. We have never accepted the 'International Law' of the text books in any great moral issue and it would be extreme naïveté to put such arguments before the Holy See. Most of our own propaganda quite rightly regards the international law devised by the great powers as an instrument intended to serve their own exclusive interests. We can't have it both ways.

Our attitude towards Poland, Spain and Palestine was determined by higher considerations, and it is because we base our International behaviour as the Minister has so frequently said, on fundamental principles, that we enjoy such a high reputation in the world.

When talking with Mgr. Tardini I, therefore, had to emphasize the difficulties of developing satisfactory trade relations, and especially those encountered in our relations with the Jews in the United States who, being so powerful in that country, could so easily have a definite influence on our destiny in the years of crisis now beginning. This latter argument did impress Mgr. Tardini. But nevertheless he was most emphatic in saying that the Holy See could not, in any way whatsoever, regard our change in policy now with anything but disapproval. He instanced the case of the Spaniards who are quite effectively looking after their interests through the Consulate General in Jerusalem. It was clear that he regarded our intended recognition as a breach in the front, and as a probable cause of scandal - in the theological sense, to the Spaniards.

Of course, the method by which we give de jure recognition is a matter deserving serious consideration. The United Nations made individual declarations unnecessary for its members. There were no individual repercussions. Must we have publicity if we go ahead with the de jure recognition now. We can't forget that, to the best of my recollection, the English-speaking Bishops, as well as most of the others, have made strong statements supporting the Holy Father's full demands. Should it not be emphasised in the memorandum for the Minister and for the Government that the antithesis is complete between the Jewish and Papal attitudes. Shall we expose ourselves to Ecclesiastical and other criticism by recognising formally and de jure now without any obvious reason for departing from our moral stand. The question will certainly be asked why we didn't adopt the system of appointing a Consul, which would be effective for all our purposes, and would be a sop to Jewish opinion.

I was told yesterday, in absolute confidence, by the Spanish Ambassador to the Holy See that the Duke of Terranova, Spanish Consul General (with the rank of Minister) in Jerusalem, reported that recently the Israeli Government was more and more inclined to come to an agreement with the Holy See.

Let us wait a little while. There are so many things about to happen in the near future that even the American Jews won't bother very much about the form of our recognition. There is nothing routine about the decision. It is a question of changing a fundamental attitude which most probably has had its effect on softening the Israel position in regard to the Holy See.

Another six or eight months can be allowed to pass without fear of evil consequences. (Why didn't Mr. O'Driscoll enlarge on them, if there are any). It is worth while making a further effort in this matter if only to keep the good will of the Holy Father towards Ireland. Palestine is one of the issues on which He holds extremely strong views.

Since my letter of December 9th there has been a hardening of the Holy See position, very probably, because they detect a weakening in that of the Jews. Behind the scenes there seems to be quite a lot of activity.

Certainly, Mgr. Tardini's attitude showed such disappointment and dismay, and if you like, intransigency, I am obliged to conclude that he fears more from our contemplated de jure recognition than he wished to say.

It may [be] useful to know the exact position of the Spaniards in Palestine.

The Duke of Terranova has two offices in Jerusalem, one on the Israeli side, and one on the Arab side. He has an Assistant who, an Assistant Consul in rank, also belongs to the diplomatic category (The separation still exists in Spain). In Haifa there is an Honorary Consul, a Jew, Victor Khayat. Spain has no official at Tel Aviv. Of course, the Consul General while living in Jerusalem moves from place to place as occasion requires. The Spaniards have a number of nationals amongst the Franciscans, and the Procurator General of the Custodia must always be a Spaniard since the Bull of Benedict XIV. Moreover they have a certain number of schools, and charitable foundations for the Arabs. Palestine is a cultural sphere of interest for the Spaniards and Italians, rather than a trading area of any consequence.

The Spanish Minister in Aman was recently invited to the installation of the Arab Guardian of the Holy Places in the Arab zone of Jerusalem (which contains the local Holy Places except the Cenaculum). He of course refused as the Spanish Government accepts the whole position of the Holy See, which excludes Arab as well as Jewish control. This point I also learned from the Spanish Ambassador in strict confidence. It is interesting to note that the French Minister at Aman also refused the invitation.

Finally, on mature reflection, I strongly urge that a memorandum be prepared for the Minister, which could subsequently be made the basis for a Government decision, setting out the Minister's own statements about the Holy Places, the essentials of the Holy Father's declarations, the declarations of our own Bishops, and of those of other English-speaking countries, and, if considered worth while, the gist of this letter.

I do not believe that the Minister, with that material before him, would give instructions to go ahead now.

I have not changed my own view about the excessive rigidity of the Holy Father's attitude nor about the possibility of the Holy See's outlook being affected by national as well as religious considerations. But the situation being what it is, if I were asked for my view, I should be opposed to de jure recognition at present.