In August 1948, Jewish leaders rejected proposals for full demilitarization of Jerusalem, arguing that it would erase their military gains and let Arab forces escape defeat. They agreed only to demilitarization of the Old City under equal religious governance with restoration of Jewish rights there.
After the Arab Legion destroyed the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem and the last Jewish residents were evacuated or taken captive to Amman, the Arabs proposed the demilitarization of the Old City. This proposal gained support in the Christian world, which showed great concern for its holy sites. At the time, the Arabs declared that they were unwilling to discuss any plan for the demilitarization of New Jerusalem because they still hoped to conquer all of Jerusalem and make it the capital of Abdullah’s kingdom.
However, the tide began to turn and the Arabs, elated by their great victory in the Old City, started to feel the impact of the Jewish counterattacks, including the proximate thunder of exploding artillery and mortar shells. When they began to see their end approaching, they once again put forth the proposal of demilitarizing Jerusalem, this time through Count Bernadotte. They added a major “concession” – the demilitarization of the entire city of Jerusalem. At first glance, the Jews might have seemed the most likely to agree to the demilitarization of the Holy City to prevent further war at the gates of the eternal city. However, upon closer examination of the situation, we come to realize the true purpose of the proposal.
Firstly, the removal of all combat forces from Jerusalem would effectively mean the removal of all Jewish fighting forces. Most of the Arab forces have already perished or fled, and those that remain cannot withstand another confrontation in a “third round” if the battle were to resume. The heavy blows suffered by the Arab forces in the Jerusalem area during the ten days between the first and second truces somewhat opened the eyes of Abdullah and his advisors. They seemingly agreed, at least temporarily, to abandon their goal of capturing Jerusalem by force and sought instead to achieve it through diplomatic means, presenting themselves as righteous figures willing to demilitarize the entire city of Jerusalem. Such a demilitarization would allow the Arabs to transfer their remaining forces from the Jerusalem front to other fronts where they had suffered even greater defeats, such as the Latrun front and the “dangerous” Arab Triangle[1], those mighty forces which British journalists had previously glorified.
Secondly, the demilitarization of Jerusalem would allow Abdullah’s armies to exit the battlefield without bearing the full stigma of a severe military defeat, a defeat from which only the second truce had saved them. They could then claim rights to Jerusalem’s future governance, whether it becomes a demilitarized zone or is placed under international control, something that cannot be achieved without a truce, something that is essentially a pause between battles, granting them time to regroup and legally reinforce their positions, as there is no oversight of movements from the Arab Triangle, Jericho, and across the Jordan River because the UN monitors are only focused on supervising Jewish routes to Jewish Jerusalem.
Therefore, we cannot support a “peace” that brings neither dignity nor benefit nor justice for the significant Jewish blood spilled in and around Jerusalem. We must reject the new proposal for Jerusalem’s demilitarization, just as our previous offer was rejected. Before the battles began in Jerusalem, we had announced our willingness to transform the city into a demilitarized zone, preventing battles there. Our offer-agreement was not accepted because, at the time, the threat to Jewish Jerusalem was overwhelming, with the British officially and openly supporting the Arab mobs and invading Arab armies.
Now, as discussions about Jerusalem’s future resume and as the Christian-Muslim world renews its attempts to undermine our legitimate rights in Jerusalem, we are obligated to exercise greater caution and diplomatic prudence, accurately assessing our military strength in Jerusalem and other fronts. We faced a tough battle and emerged victorious. We must either receive what is rightfully ours as a result of our victories or demand the right to solidify those victories.
Today, we can only agree to the demilitarization of the Old City under the condition that all murderers and “snipers,” including regular and irregular armies, are removed. A prominent global statesman once proposed declaring the Old City of Jerusalem an international city under a religious international administration composed solely of clergy. This proposal was rejected. The world placed too much faith in British propaganda and deluded itself into thinking Arab armies could easily achieve victory throughout the land, thus eradicating the idea of a Jewish state and political Zionism. For this reason, they ignored practical proposals aimed at genuinely saving Jerusalem from destruction and desecration. Consequently, they did nothing to prevent the burning, destruction, and desecration of Jewish holy sites by desert marauders and their visible and hidden supporters.
Now that most of New Jerusalem has been liberated and is under Israeli control, they wish to impose demilitarization on us, which would mean international control replacing previous British oppression and an arbitrary limitation of Jewish rights in Jerusalem.
Thus, the only acceptable proposal would involve the demilitarization of the Old City and its governance by clergy of all religions on an equal basis, restoring all rights to the Jewish community in the Old City, including the right to rebuild the destroyed Jewish Quarter. Only such a proposal is worthy of consideration.
22 Tammuz, Jerusalem
[1] The “Arab Triangle”refers to the three towns of Nablus (Shchem), Jenin, and Tulkarem.
