MUGHRABI GATE AT UNESCO 182ND EXECUTIVE BOARD

UNCLAS UNESCO PARIS FR 001312 SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL UNESCO JO IS SCUL KWBG SUBJECT: MUGHRABI GATE AT UNESCO 182ND EXECUTIVE BOARD ¶1. (SBU) Summary: For the first time in recent memory, the issue of the reconstruction of the ascent to the Mughrabi Gate of Jerusalem's Temple Mount registered only as a minor blip on the radar screen during the just completed 182nd Executive Board at UNESCO. Although the Jordanians arrived seemingly determined to raise a fuss, they quickly retreated and allowed the issue to be settled quietly. While we were lucky to avoid the subject this time around, it will surely be raised again, either at the upcoming General Conference or at the World Heritage General Assembly next month. End summary. ONE PLAN, TWO PLANS ¶2. (SBU) The last round of discussions between Israel and Jordan regarding Mughrabi Gate were held during the World Heritage Committee meeting in Seville in June, 2009, its proper forum in the UNESCO context, after discussion of the subject at the Organization's last - Executive Board meetings. The Israelis had indicated their willingness to allow the Jordanians to visit the site and perhaps even take measurements, provided that their design proposals would be incorporated into a single design plan that Israel would build. WORKING ON AN OPENING ¶3. (SBU) Since the July meeting, the Israelis have prepared a new design plan, which they have shared with the U.S. This plan appears to integrate elements of the Jordanian plan with the original Israeli design. However, the Jordanians have held firm to their belief that they have the right to submit a second plan to World Heritage Committee which should then choose between competing Israeli and Jordanian designs. The Israelis, in the meantime, have sent UNESCO a series of documents and letters, detailing their bilateral discussions with Jordan, including their offers of further visits to the site. Jordan has reportedly refused to accept these offered visits unless it can take measurements intended to facilitate completion of a second plan. Israel for its part is steadfastly opposed to a second plan and has not permitted Jordan to take measurements for this purpose. 4 (SBU) At the last minute before the Executive Board began, Jordan decided to submit a draft decision on Mughrabi Gate, diverging significantly from the Secretariat's proposed text and trying to strengthen its position that would ultimately permit them to submit a separate design plan. JORDAN BACKS DOWN ¶5. (SBU) The initial language proposed by Jordan was, according to the Israelis, completely unacceptable, and led them to believe that Jordan was planning to use the Executive Board as the platform for a final rejection of the Israeli planning process. Tibi Schlosser, who flew in from Jerusalem to negotiate in the absence of an Israeli ambassador to UNESCO, said privately that his government was ready to walk away and deal with the consequences later. ¶6. (SBU) Jordan and Israel held several direct meetings in the presence of a junior Secretariat official. Neither side sought a high level mediator this time, and there were many fewer appeals for U.S. intervention than there normally are. ¶7. (SBU) The Jordanians suddenly withdrew their more strident language, and ultimately agreed to a version that comprised only small changes to the original "neutral" Secretariat text. The U.S. delegation did not get involved in any of the talks unlike previous discussions of this issue at Executive Boards. FEARFUL EGYPT? ¶8. (SBU) While we do not know why the Jordanians pulled back, we suspect they did so when they realized that Executive Board members were completely preoccupied with the extremely close race to replace retiring UNESCO Director-General Matsuura. Member States simply would not have tolerated the injection of a bitter Middle East controversy into the Board's already difficult discussions. While we have no specific proof, we suspect that the Egyptians made this clear to the Jordanians. A row over Jerusalem could well have played poorly among the African and Asian delegations and damaged the prospects of Egypt's Director-General candidate, Farouk Hosni. ¶9. (SBU) It is also possible that the Egyptians, confident of winning the D-G race, indicated to Jordan that the Secretariat position would be more amenable to the Arab side after the voting was over. In any case, the Jordanians made the decision to back off of what initially was a hard-line stance. ¶10. (SBU) Comment: We may have escaped this time due to special circumstances, but the Mughrabi Gate issue is certain to come back and with great emotion, unless Jordan and Israel can make progress in resolving the one plan/two plan issue in their bilateral discussions. It will be almost impossible for UNESCO on its own to bring the sides to resolve this. We may not have long to wait. Jordan might try to raise the subject during the upcoming General Conference and/or during the World Heritage General Assembly next month. End comment. KILLION