A Joint Statement of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the American Friends Service Committee

Jerusalem is a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the conflict began, conditions in the Holy City have always reflected wider relations between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Jerusalem will not, for good or ill, escape this role in the future. The justice and stability of the peace now being negotiated by Palestinians and Israelis will inevitably be mirrored in Jerusalem. An agreement on Jerusalem that can command broad assent among Israelis and Palestinians is essential to a lasting peace.

Such an agreement may be difficult to envision at present. The effects of twenty-eight years of Israeli occupation are more evident in Palestinian East Jerusalem than elsewhere in the West Bank and Gaza. The legacy of the divided city from 1948 to 1967 is still palpable. Current Israeli and Palestinian positions on Jerusalem seem far apart. A tragic escalation of violence, the continuing restrictions and illegal settlement activity of the occupation, delays and setbacks in negotiations, and issues of internal Palestinian governance all contribute to an environment in which it is difficult to imagine a future accord on Jerusalem.

We believe despite these difficulties that an agreement on Jerusalem acceptable to all parties is achievable. We believe, moreover, that public discussion of the future of Jerusalem has grown urgent for three reasons: to prepare the way for official negotiations on Jerusalem scheduled to begin no later than May 5, 1996; to keep the vision and possibility of a better future from being obscured by the problems of the present; and to urge immediate interim steps that both parties and the United States should take to ensure eventual achievement of a just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian agreement on Jerusalem and other outstanding issues.

This statement of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the American Friends Service Committee is intended as an initial contribution to the public discussion of the future of Jerusalem. It is intended at the same time to call attention to the actions urgently needed now to make agreement possible in the future.

Five broad principles of fairness and equity should guide a settlement on Jerusalem. These principles, in essence, assert that Jerusalem must be shared, that the city can not be the exclusive domain of Israelis or Palestinians if there is to be a lasting peace between the two peoples.

We take encouragement from the fact that there is partial agreement among Israeli and Palestinian leaderships on some of these principles and significantly broader agreement among those Israelis and Palestinians who were in the forefront of the long struggle to achieve mutual recognition.

1) A settlement on Jerusalem must be reached by negotiation between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships and approved democratically by the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

By agreeing to include Jerusalem in final status talks, Israel and the PLO have already committed themselves to decide the city's future by negotiation. Israel's parliamentary process will provide a means for Israelis to approve an eventual agreement. Palestinians also need a democratic forum to express their will. Creation of an elected, broadly representative, Palestinian Self Governing Authority that includes East Jerusalem Palestinians is thus a prerequisite for resolution of the Jerusalem question.

 2) A settlement must leave Jerusalem physically undivided and open to the entry and free movement of peoples throughout.

Palestinians or Israelis desire a return to the status quo of the Jerusalem of 1948-1967, when a no-man's land of barbed wire and land mines ran through the middle of the city and residents on one side were barred from travel to he other. Regardless of whether a final agreement provides for shared or divided sovereignty or one or two municipalities, Jerusalem, as the symbol and centerpiece of Israeli-Palestinian relations, should be an open and physically united city.

 3) A settlement must accord equal political and national status to Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem

Any settlement that accords either national group an inferior status will sooner or later be repudiated by that group, fatally undermining Israeli-Palestinian peace. Equality of status for Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem would most likely take the form of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and an independent Palestinian state. Other solutions, such as internationalization of the city, are possible, but less likely to gain support.

This might be accomplished in part by expanding Jerusalem's municipal boundaries to create balanced Jewish and Arab constituent boroughs, or by contracting municipal boundaries to create separate Israeli and Palestinian municipalities. Most importantly, agreed borders or subdivisions and administrative arrangements must facilitate equitable land use. Palestinians must have the opportunity to build in Jerusalem denied them by twenty-eight years of occupation. Redress must be offered for land seized in occupied East Jerusalem in violation of international law, perhaps by providing Palestinians with comparable land in West Jerusalem and Israel's Jerusalem corridor further west. Jerusalem property lost by Palestinians and Israelis in 1948 must also be taken into account in devising equitable arrangements for the future. Also, competing needs of secular and religious residents of Jerusalem must be accommodated.

 5) A settlement should give formal expression to the special significance of Jerusalem in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Developments in the interim period of Palestinian self-rule and final status negotiations can help or hinder a fair and equitable agreement on Jerusalem. Present circumstances in Jerusalem pose a grave threat to the peace process and the city's future. Israel, as the occupying power in East Jerusalem, has the greatest power to improve conditions. The PLO, for its part, can do much, by promoting Palestinian democracy. The US., as guarantor of the peace process, can take some positive steps itself and can play an important role in encouraging the parties to constructive action.

The following steps should be taken now to reverse declining support for the peace process and advance an equitable agreement:

• Lift permanently the military closure of Jerusalem that restricts entrance of West Bank and Gaza residents to the city. The closure of Jerusalem imposes severe economic and social hardships on Palestinians and encourages Palestinian opposition to the peace process. Immediate human and political needs will be served by lifting the closure. Equally important, opening Jerusalem to the free movement of Palestinians will achieve one requirement of an equitable accord on the city's future.

• Halt the process of seizing Palestinian public and private land in Jerusalem, as well as elsewhere in the occupied territories. New land seizures and new actions to take possession of lands said to have been formally seized earlier destroy confidence in the peace process and further prejudice negotiations by faits accomplis.

• Stop the establishment and expansion of settlements in and around Jerusalem, as well as elsewhere in the territories. Continuing settlement activity, like land seizure, diminishes political support for the peace process and threatens to impose a unilateral, instead of a negotiated, solution to the Jerusalem question and other Israeli-Palestinian issues.

• Alleviate the most severe problems of overcrowding and substandard housing in Palestinian neighborhoods by issuing building permits for new construction that addresses this problem. A recent report by the Israeli Municipality of Jerusalem confirms that a severe housing shortage exists for Palestinians as "the direct result of a planning process limiting Arab building in Jerusalem." Immediate steps to address the shortage would both build confidence and provide humanitarian relief.

• Establish a strong framework for Palestinian democracy by providing for free and fair elections to the Palestinian Self Governing Authority. The elections should be conducted in a manner that encourages all factions to participate and must be preceded by redeployment of the Israeli army away from Palestinian population centers, as provided for in the Declaration of Principles. The Self Governing Authority should include an elected assembly with sole legislative powers. Such an inclusive, democratic structure is essential for authoritative decision-making on Jerusalem and all other important issues.

• Insure that Palestinian residents of Jerusalem be eligible for election to the Palestinian Self Governing Authority and allowed to vote for the Authority at polling places in Jerusalem. Failure to do so would partially disenfranchise Palestinian Jerusalemites and give them a separate and inferior status compared to Palestinians elsewhere in the occupied territories.

The United States can support an equitable accord on Jerusalem by encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to take the above steps. In addition, the US. acting alone can contribute in some measure to a fair solution by taking the following actions:

• The U.S. should fully implement its policy of deducting from Israeli loan guarantees an amount equal to Israeli settlement spending, including spending for settlements in and around Jerusalem. When it was established in 1991 this policy was one of the most principled and effective steps taken by the U.S. in recent years to promote Arab-Israeli peace. It played a role in bringing a moderate government to power in Israel and its rigorous implementation now can encourage moderate Israeli policies and also build Palestinian confidence in the peace process.

• Until Israelis and the Palestinians implement a final status agreement, Administration statements and actions should continue to reflect the international consensus and longstanding U.S. view that Jerusalem's status is unresolved and that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. Any verbal departure from this position, or any action inconsistent with it, such as moving the US. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, could make it more difficult or impossible to reach agreement on the city's future.

• The Administration should instruct U.S. government representatives to meet Palestinian representatives in Jerusalem to conduct official business. Refusal to do so would imply that Palestinians have no standing in Jerusalem. Official U.S.-Palestinian meetings in Jerusalem serve to highlight the need to take account of Palestinian rights in an agreement on the city's future.

For more information contact:

AFSC - Kathy Bergen, Philadelphia, (215) 241-7019; Jim Matlack, Washington, DC, (202) 483-3341

FCNL - Joe Volk, Washington, DC, (202) 547-6000

AFSC- Phone. 215/241-7000 Fax: 215241-7247 Don Gann, Clerk, Kara L. Newell, Executive Director

Revised 3/95