Introduction

     Thousands of church officials and members have endorsed the Churches for Middle East Peace’s call for a shared Jerusalem. Its focus on Jerusalem expresses not only the religious attachment of Christians to the Holy City, but also Jerusalem’s fundamental importance in establishing peace and goodwill among Israelis, Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. As Jerusalem’s status awaits determination in the “final status negotiations,” de-facto changes are taking place that make life there even more difficult for Palestinians and diminishes their presence in the city. So it is with each of the final status issues. Waiting for negotiations has resulted in lost hope and lost opportunity for Palestinians and Israelis. Looking beyond the current stalemate, President Clinton, in his April 26, 1999, letter to Yasser Arafat, proposed an extension of the Oslo process with final status talks to begin soon after Israel’s elections. 

What Are “Final Status Issues”?

     When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, they agreed to postpone negotiations on the most difficult issues. The hope was that through the experiences of peacemaking during the interim period there would emerge among Israelis and among Palestinians the trust and confidence needed to make the compromises necessary to resolve the most weighty matters. The initial “Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements” (DOP) they signed, along with subsequent agreements, are popularly known as the Oslo Accords. 

     The DOP outlined a transitional period not exceeding five years with “permanent status negotiations” beginning not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period: “It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including  Jerusalem,  refugees, settlements,  security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.”  The final status talks (though formally opened on May 6, 1996, and due to conclude in May of 1999) have been halted since the 1996 Israeli elections that brought Prime Minister Netanyahu’s Likud coalition to power. 

Even though the United Nation’s 1947 plan for partition of Palestine placed Jerusalem under international control, the city was physically and politically divided between Israel and Jordan following the 1948 war. After Israel captured East Jerusalem, including the Old City with its holy sites, from Jordan in the June 1967 war, Israel attached 25 square miles of West Bank land to the city. The Israeli government then annexed the enlarged area and began building housing there for Israeli Jews. Such actions by an occupying power are prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention. 

Even though Jerusalem functions as Israel’s capital, it is not recognized as such by the international community. All countries (except Costa Rica and El Salvador) maintain embassies in Tel Aviv. Israel’s tactic has been to create “facts on the ground” that enhance Israeli interests throughout Jerusalem while diminishing the Palestinian presence by confiscating Jerusalem identity cards and curtailing housing. Israel has built massive housing complexes – settlements – in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, creating barriers between the Palestinian cities and villages and the people, churches and institutions of East Jerusalem. Additionally, bureaucratic barriers – border closures and required entry permits – cut off West Bank/Gaza residents from Jerusalem, causing the withering of Palestinian economic, institutional and religious life. 

The religious and historical significance of Jerusalem to Jews, Muslims and Christians worldwide brings international and interreligious dimensions to the negotiations that will determine the city’s status. Churches for Middle East Peace advocates a negotiated sharing of Jerusalem by Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the three religious communities. 

  “A Jerusalem that is called holy by Christians, a place where every Christian can feel at home, cannot reflect values that are at odds with fundamental tenets of our faith. This, too, is our stake in Jerusalem: not a territorial claim, not a political design, but rather a steady insistence that the city we call ‘holy’ and ‘home’ reflects common values of love, sharing and justice_ We join our brothers and sisters in the Abrahamic tradition in striving together, in hope and love, for a Jerusalem that remains holy for all.” 
— from City of Holiness and Hope, a Message on Jerusalem in 1996 by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. 

“For some years, the Holy See has sought a ‘special statute’ for Jerusalem_ necessary to preserve the unique religious character of the Holy City, and to secure the rights of the living religious communities_ [this statute] should be confused neither with the so-called ‘corpus separatum’ proposed by the United Nations in 1947, nor with what is popularly called ‘the internationalization’ of the city.” 
— from The Future of Jerusalem,  Some Clarifications in 1998 by Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick, Chairman, U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops Committee on International Policy.

     Protests have stalled the building of a settlement to be named Har Homa on a wooded hill between Bethlehem and East Jerusalem. Har Homa would nearly complete the “ring” of settlements that are strategically placed to separate East Jerusalem from West Bank cities and villages. 

Report on Israeli Settlement by the Foundation for Middle East Peace      www.fmep.org

dismantling settlements with the residents returning to Israel,

turning the vacated settlements over to Palestinians as compensation,

annexing to Israel settlements located near the 1967 border line,

arranging for settlers to remain in Palestine while retaining their Israeli citizenship, and

providing Palestinian citizenship to Israelis who wish to live in Palestine.

Settlement infrastructure issues will also be negotiated: 

• the roads designed for settlers to bypass Arab communities,

• Israel’s disproportionate use of water resources and 

• “security” matters, including the role of the Israeli army, the arming of individual settlers and land confiscated for security zones around settlements. 

     U.S. government policy opposes all unilateral acts that prejudice and predetermine issues that were to be reserved for final status negotiation. President Clinton described Israel’s land confiscations and Jewish settlements as “destructive to the pursuit of peace” in his April 26, 1999, letter to Yasser Arafat. Since the Wye River agreement, Israel has continued to create such “facts on the ground,” evidently with the objective of preventing a viable Palestinian state.

     For Jerusalem – which both parties claim as their capital city – the determination of sovereignty and borders will demand creativity and compromise by both parties. The degree of openness of the border for trade and people, whether for their work or worship, as well as security procedures at the border, are also important. 

     The issue of water rights is a high priority matter for Palestinians and Israelis. The water situation is complicated because the primary aquifers supplying Israel lie under West Bank land, the Jordan River headwaters lie in Syria and Jordan, and Gaza is dependent upon Israel for water. The water shortage problem will require cooperation and long-term changes by Israelis and Palestinians, including desalination, conservation, pipelines and basic changes in agriculture. 

Applied Research Institute Jerusalem: environment, water and settlements      www.arij.org 

American Committee on Jerusalem (Arab American coalition)        www.acj.org

Decisions will be made in negotiations about:

 

• the return of some Palestinians to pre-1967 Israel with compensation for the losses of others,
• the repatriation of a considerable number of refugees to Palestine, and
• the absorption of many into the countries where they now live or into other countries willing to receive them either as citizens or as resident aliens with Palestinian national passports. 

“The Palestinian Refugee Problem and the Right of Return”

     This proposal, from a working group of Israelis and Palestinians, examines the traditional and the possible compromise solutions of both sides. In order to reach a compromise, four clusters of issues are further identified as requiring resolution for their differences to be bridged. 

1. The nature of Israeli acknowledgment of suffering and responsibility. 
2. The nature and number of return/family reunification to Israel proper. 
3. The nature and size of compensation and linkage to Jewish refugees. 
4. The size of return to the Palestinian state. 

Published in September 1998 by Joseph Alpher, director of the American Jewish Committee’s office in Israel, and Khalil Shikaki, director of the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge St., Cambridge, Mass. 02138).

     The author provides historical and international law frameworks as well as an appendix of the relevant documents. She offers a plan for permanent regional absorption of Palestinian refugees. It is offered as a “proposal” to prompt discussion and to generate other possible solutions. 

Repatriation and Resettlement of  Palestinian Refugees

Published in 1996 by Donna Artz, Council on Foreign Relations Press (58 East 68th St., New York, NY 10021). 

McGill University’s Palestinian refugee web site: www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/prfront.html

     Since the December 1998 visit of President and Mrs. Clinton to Gaza and Bethlehem, many advocates for Israel-Palestinian peace can see what has been referred to in the Palestinian media as “a light at the end of the tunnel.” It was inconceivable five years ago, even to the most optimistic of peacemakers, that a U.S. president would go to Gaza to address the Palestinian National Council. Moreover, there are encouraging signs that some members of the U.S. Congress are moving toward readiness for a new, positive relationship with the Palestinians. Who could have envisioned that 40 members of Congress would attend a luncheon meeting with Yasser Arafat, as they did during his February 1999 visit to Washington, D.C.? 

     The U.S. Congress, as well as President Clinton and future U.S. presidents, will retain close bonds with Israel; that is a given. But as Clinton said to the Palestinian National Council: “The fulfillment of one side’s aspirations must not come at the expense of the other. We must believe that everyone can win in the new Middle East.” 

What You Can Do

In your congregation and community. . .

Organize a Sunday School study session on the peace process and final status negotiations using this document as a resource. 

Write letters to the editor of your newspaper. 

Participate in talk-radio programs. 

Write to the administration and send copies of the letter to your representative and senators. 

Stress the key points below. 

• Encourage U.S. leadership for negotiations that result in an open, undivided, shared Jerusalem that respects the national rights of both peoples, as well as the religious rights of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. 
• Express your support for a resolution that realizes Palestinian self-determination in a state that has the land, freedoms and security necessary to be viable. 
• Express your concern for the Palestinian refugees and the necessity of transforming their status with safeguards, wherever they may reside, to that of citizens – of Palestine, of Israel or of other states. 

 

President Bill Clinton 
The White House 
Washington, D.C. 20500 
Comment line 202-456-1111 

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright 
U.S. Department of State 
Washington, D.C. 20520 

The Honorable Senator _____ 
U.S. Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

The Honorable Representative _____ 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Washington, D.C. 20515