U.N. Jerusalem Discussions Retarding Peace Efforts by Raising Arab Hopes, Eban Says

The discussion of an international statute for Jerusalem at the U.N. Trusteeship Council cessiors here is having a retarding effect on conciliation talks between the Arab states and Israel at the Palestine Conciliation Commission’s sessions, also in this city, Aubrey S. Eban, chief Israel delegate to both bodies, today told a press conference.

Mr. Eban declared that the Trusteeship Council discussions have excited Arab hopes that Israel will find itself in difficulties through conflict with the U.N. over the Jerusalem situation.

It is for this reason alone, he added, that Israel would like to see an early solution of the Jerusalem issue. Otherwise, he stated, the Jewish state is not greatly concerned if the Jerusalem decision is further delayed.

The armistice agreement with Jordan has worked so well that hardly a soldier is to be seen on the streets of Jerusalem, Mr. Eban pointed out. There are only two Israel and two Jordan battalions in the entire Jerusalem area. The demilitarization of the city has probably progressed as far as it can go until there is complete peace in the Middle East, he said.

A good purpose has been served by the present Council session, he continued, in that it has revealed to members of the body the complete impracticability of the Jerusalem statute prepared in 1948 and of the General Assembly’s decision to proceed with the implementation of that statute.

WARNS AGAINST HASTY ACTION BY THE TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL

The Israel diplomat insisted that the problem facing the Council was a decision whether to seek an alternative solution or, if it feels that its powers are too restricted, to refer the entire issue to the next session of the Assembly. He emphasized that Israel has limited itself to pointing up the need for a new conception for the protection of the Holy Places — a suggestion which neither Jordan, nor any member of the Council, nor the president of the body, Ambassador Roger Garreau, has shown any inclination to follow up.

Above all, Mr. Eban warned against hasty action by the Council which might disturb the present “tranquillity of Jerusalem.” He counselled “caution and prudance” in the search for a new solution of the city’s problem.

He also indicated that Israel’s suggestion of U.N. protection for the Holy Places in Jerusalem was confined to those Holy Places established as such by the status quo and by the British Mandatory Government. At present all such places are in Arab held territory, he pointed out. Israel does not accept the view that all churches, denominational schools and other religious institutions commonly referred to as religious sites merit other treatment in Israel than they receive in Geneva or London, he declared.

He expressed the thought that Israel’s participation in the Trusteeship Council’s discussions had helped clarify its position and had helped convince the Council of the impracticability of its project to establish an international enclave as requested by the General Assembly. He said that the Council had also been convinced of Israel’s desire to aid in finding a genuinely constructive arrangement which would ensure freedom of access and protection to the Holy Places.