No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Vatican, Latin America, and Jerusalem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Extract
Viewed from its widest angle, the dormant but still unsettled question of the internationalization of Jerusalem is, in reality, a struggle between the Holy See and the Jewish state. Thus one protagonist will inform the United Nations that “the Catholic body throughout the world…will not be contented with a mere internationalization of the Holy Places in Jerusalem” and the other will proclaim to the Israeli Parliament that “for the state of Israel there is, has been and always will be one capital only, Jerusalem, the Eternal”. Since 1947 the Vatican has directed a campaign designed to make unmistakably clear to Israel and the UN that nothing less than the complete territorial internationalization of Jerusalem would be satisfactory; with equal steadfastness has Israel maintained her claim to sovereignty over the entire New City of Jerusalem.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1957
References
1 Unpublished letter from the Rt. Rev. Msgr. Thomas J. McMahon, National Secretary of the Catholic Near East Welfare Association, to UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, September 16, 1953. The original is located in the UN Library (No. UNX. 956.901). The Association, whose letterhead says “Established by the Holy See”, is an official agency of the Vatican on Palestine matters.
2 Prime Minister Ben-Gurion, David, as quoted in the New York Times, 12 14, 1949, p. 1Google Scholar.
3 Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are also in the Papal orbit but these nations were admitted to the UN after the period being discussed in this study.
4 Baruch Zuckerman, “Der Katoilisher Kirkh Kegn Yerushalayim [The Catholic Church Against Jerusalem],” Yiddisher Kemfer, Vol. 30 (12 16, 1949). p. 1Google Scholar. This is the official Yiddish-language organ of the Labor Zionist Organization of America.
5 “An Antoishung, Nit Kein Niderlage [A Disappointment, Not a Defeat],” ibid., Vol. 33 (December 26, 1952), p. 1–2.
6 Horowitz, David, Slate in the Making, translated by Meltzer, Julian, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1953, p. 296Google Scholar.
7 A second UN delegate, from South America, told the author that specifically “Colombia, El Salvador, and Peru are in the pocket of the Vatican on this question”. Both diplomats have, for obvious reasons, requested anonymity.
8 United Nations, General Assembly Official Records (third session), Supplement No. 11 (Lake Success, New York: United Nations, 1948), p. 17–18Google Scholar. Hereafter the Official Records of the General Assembly will be cited as UN, G.A.O.R., etc.
9 Colombia, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Memoria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1949 (Bogota: Prensas del Ministerio de Educación Nacional, 1949), p. 387–389Google Scholar.
10 See the New York Times, October 24, 1948, p. 7.
11 UN, G.A.O.R., third sess., Part I, First Com., p. 672, 694, 720, 724, 779, 803, 840, 891–895Google Scholar; and ibid., Plenary, p. 995.
12 Ibid., Resolutions, p. 23.
13 “Jerusalem,” The Commonweal, Vol. 50 (07 1, 1949), p. 297Google Scholar.
14 New York Times, September 25, 1949, p. 29.
15 “Quoted in Poliakov, L., “The Vatican and the ‘Jewish Question’,” Commentary, Vol. 10 (11, 1950). p. 448Google Scholar.
16 For the texts of these three plans, see UN Documents A/973, A/AC.31/L.37, and A/AC.31/L.53.
17 New York Times, November 27, 1949, p. 27.
18 UN, G.A.O.R., fourth sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p. 283, 301, 351–352, 357–358Google Scholar; and Bauer, Carlos García, En el amenacer de nna nueva era: episodios de la participación de Guatemala en la vida international, Guatemala, Tipografia Nacional, 1951, p. 185–186Google Scholar.
19 UN, G.A.O.R., fourth sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p. 265, 267, 273, 276, 348, 358, 365Google Scholar; and Ecuador, Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Informe a la Nación, Quito, Talleres Gráficos “Minerva,” 1950, II, p. 97Google Scholar.
20 UN, G.A.O.R., fourth sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p. 268Google Scholar; and ibid., Annexes, I, p. 59.
22 Ibid., Plenary, p. 607.
23 See the New York Times, December 13, 1949, p. 1; “The U.N. and Jerusalem,” The Catholic World, Vol. 170 (02 1950), p. 324Google Scholar; “Jews and Catholics,” The Commonweal, Vol. 51 (01 13, 1950), p. 382Google Scholar; and “Las Naciones Unidas: el pleito de Jerusalem,” Hispano Americano, Vol. 16 (01 20, 1950), p. 16Google Scholar.
24 Van Paassen, Pierre, Jerusalem Calling! New York, Dial Press, Inc., 1950, p. 215Google Scholar; Lehrman, Hal, “The U.N. Tangle over Jerusalem,” Commentary, Vol. 9 (02 1950), p. 108Google Scholar; and Shultz, Lillie, “The Jerusalem Story,” The Nation, Vol. 169 (12 17, 1949), p. 590–591Google Scholar. See also McDonald, James G., My Mission to Israel, 1948–1951, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1951, p. 205Google Scholar.
25 UN, G.A.O.R., fourth sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p. 367Google Scholar.
26 New York Times, May 31, 1950, p. 12.
27 Ibid., November 21, 1950, p. 18; and Poliakov, “The Vatican and the ‘Jewish Question’,” cited above, p. 449.
28 New York Times, December 2, 1950, p. 5.
29 UN, G.A.O.R., fifth sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p. 486–487, 518Google Scholar.
30 Ibid., p. 469–470. Italics added.
31 New York Times, December 19, 1950, p. 28. Italics added.
32 UN Document A/2310.
33 UN, G.A.O.R., seventh sess., Ad Hoc Pol. Com., p 237Google Scholar.
34 Quoted in the New York Times, December 15, 1952, p. 10.
35 Argentina, Mexico, and Peru abstained in the plenary as they did in committee. As for the Catholic-oriented countries of western Europe, France and Luxembourg voted for the final resolution and Belgium abstained. UN, G.A.O.R., seventh sess., Plenary, p. 413–414Google Scholar.
36 New York Times, December 20, 1952, p. 16. Italics added.
37 Compiled by the author from UN, G.A.O.R., second special sess.—seventh sess.
38 Compiled by the author from UN, G.A.O.R., second special sess.—seventh sess.