U.N. Trusteeship Council Convenes Today at Lake Success; Will Discuss Jerusalem Stateus

The U.N. Trusteeship Council will convene here tomorrow for its seventh regular session with the question of Jerusalem once more highlighting its agenda, which it is expected to take two months to get through. Although the Jerusalem item appears as number ten on the provisional agenda, Council sources said today it will come up for discussion in the first week.

(The New York Times today reported from Rome that the new Israeli proposal to accept United Nations authority over the Holy Places in Jerusalem instead of the internationalization of the whole city was considered inadequate by well-informed Vatican circles. They made it clear that the Pope’s views concerning the Palestine question were unchanged, the report said.)

The first important task of the Trusteeship Council is to elect a new president to replace Roger Garreau of France, whose own attitude on the Jerusalem question has been conciliatory and who has shown no enthusiasm for the internationalization scheme voted by the Assomely last fall. The presidency shifts this year from the trust-administering countries to non-administering members, which means that the president will be elected from among candidates selected by China, the U.S.S.R., Argentina, Iraq, the Philippines and Dominican Republic.

Aubrey S. Eban, Israel’s permanent delegate to the U.N., today issued a statement experessing his government’s gratification at the public response to its efforts to solve the Jerusalem deadlock, adding that “a solution is in sight if other interested parties show a similar spirit of conciliation and realism.

“Before formulating its proposals, the Israel Government consulted with the leading members of the U.N. The response from them greatly encouraged us to go forward with our proposals,” he continued. “We were further impressed by the growing number of our colleagues in the U.N., who, having supported the resolution for an internationalized regime at the last session, now urged us with all fervor to assist in finding a more equitable solution.

“The only criticism which I have heard so far is that our proposal is based on the promise of future peace in the Near East, whereas certain critics of our proposals base themselves on the premise of war. It is true that our basic premise is peace and not war. The expectation of war in the Near East is not a moral concept on which to base the future of Jerusalem,” he pointed out. “Nor is this a logical argument in favor of the internationalized regime. For if the U.N., and especially the great powers, could not prevent war in the area, as they are solemnly pledged to do, how would they be able to safeguard the integrity of an internationalized city against the impact of that war?” Mr. Eban asked.