"We urge the United States government to call upon negotiators to move beyond exclusivist claims and create a Jerusalem that is a sign of peace and a symbol of reconciliation for all humankind." from "Christians Call for a Shared Jerusalem" statement signed by many heads of churches in 1996. 

Jerusalem lies at the heart of both the hope for peace and the threat of war between Israelis and Palestinians, and has a similar impact on the whole Middle East region. With the issue of Jerusalem at long last put on the
negotiating table at the July Camp David Summit, it will remain the dominant issue of negotiations and/or confrontations regardless of changes of  governmental leadership in the U.S. or the region. While peace-seeking advocates will want to tailor their advocacy and education efforts to fit the most recent news and address other Israeli-Palestinian issues, the basic principles that apply to Jerusalem remain consistent. 

The principal issues related to Jerusalem to be addressed by peace-seeking advocates from the U.S. churches are: 1. the relationship between negotiations and international law; 2. the need for a "special statute" for Jerusalem that is guaranteed by the international community; 3. the controversy over the location of the U.S. embassy to Israel. 

THE NEGOTIATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: 
The notion that the status of Jerusalem was an issue that could be resolved solely through U.S. shepherding of bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority ended with the spiral of violence that began in late September. The international interest in Jerusalem became broadly evident in the ensuing protests, from the diplomatic level with the U.N. Security Council passing a resolution to the popular level with huge crowds taking to the streets across the Arab world. 

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had not even discussed Jerusalem, designed in the Oslo accords as a final status issue, until the July Camp David summit. Some progress was made at that summit in that the concept of sharing the city and actual proposals were raised. But the aftermath revealed that the Palestinian people and the Arab countries would have rejected an agreement by Mr. Arafat to the proposal that Israel maintain sovereignty over the Muslim holy sites and East Jerusalem – which, according to international law, are part of the territory occupied by Israel during the 1967 war. 

The process of negotiating the future of Jerusalem does not negate the applicability of the relevant international law set in United Nations resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. U.N. Security Council resolution 242 calls for Israel's withdrawal from land occupied in 1967; the convention prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population into occupied territories and deals with protection of civilians under occupation. The formula for sharing Jerusalem between the two peoples - Israeli and Palestinians and three religions - Jewish, Christian and Muslim, should be grounded in international law, with the details being the appropriate subject of negotiation. 

INTERNATIONAL ROLE REQUIRED FOR JERUSALEM 
The outbreak of violence in September 2000 between Israelis and Palestinians was sparked by the Israeli government allowing Ariel Sharon to assert Israel's sovereignty by going onto the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary with 1,000 armed Israeli police. This provocative action demonstrates why a special statue for Jerusalem is required that can be guaranteed by the international community is required. 

The twelve Patriarchs and Heads of Jerusalem churches have promoted the concept of this special statute since their statement of November 1994: "It is necessary to accord Jerusalem a special statute which will allow Jerusalem not be victimized by laws imposed as a result of hostilities or wars but to be an open city which transcends local, regional or world political troubles. This statute, established in common by local political and religious authorities, should also be guaranteed by the international community." 

THE U.S. EMBASSY LOCATION: 
The Clinton Administration, and previous administrations, repeatedly resisted congressional sentiment to relocate the embassy on the grounds that the highly symbolic move would inflame passions and, by supporting Israel's claim to all the city, stand in the way of a negotiated resolution of its status by Israelis and Palestinians. President Clinton used the waiver authority provided in the bill to suspend the mandated move by citing national security reasons. The misguided demand for the United States to unilaterally recognize Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem by moving the embassy will continue to be a provocative problem until the city's status is determined through negotiations. There will be pressure on President Clinton during the
interim period and on the newly elected President to move the embassy. 

The Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress reports that no country other than Israel has recognized Israel's sovereignty over the city, its claim that Jerusalem is its capital or its annexation of eastern 
Jerusalem following the 1967 war. (Nevertheless, Costa Rica and El Salvador have embassies in Jerusalem.) Yet, for years Congress has voiced the opinion that the U.S. embassy to Israel should be moved to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. In 1995, Congress overwhelmingly passed The Jerusalem Embassy Act (P.L. 104-45) which states that unless an embassy in Jerusalem is opened by May 1999 the State Department's budget would be cut. 

ADVOCACY APPEAL: 
Advocates are encouraged to send not only letters of opinion to their elected officials, but also to mail to them announcements of church or community programs about sharing Jerusalem and articles from your churches' 
publications about Jerusalem and the Palestinian Christian community. Do not neglect those local barometers of public opinion - talk radio discussions and letters to the editor. With the dispute over Jerusalem's status now being widely reported, politicians are keenly alert to indications of shifts in public opinion. During the transition period between the elections and inauguration, the outgoing Clinton Administration could be very active on these matters; write to the current policymakers during that period. 

In your advocacy letters:

1. Express your hope for comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. Emphasize that for a negotiated agreement to lead to lasting peace there must be an equitable solution for Jerusalem that respects the human and political
rights of Palestinians and Israelis as well as the three religious communities. Call for the sharing of Jerusalem between the two peoples and three religions and ask your elected official if they will support the sharing of Jerusalem. Remind your elected officials that the international community has an intense interest in the holy city's future, that international law remains applicable to Jerusalem, and that East Jerusalem is correctly considered to be illegally occupied. Appeal for them to be open to the involvement of the United 
Nations and other international bodies. This is the way to peace.

2. While making the case to the President and your U.S. Representative and Senators for the sharing of Jerusalem, it is essential to voice disapproval of politicians using the issue of Jerusalem for political gain and their provoking anti-American sentiment by calling for the relocation of the embassy before negotiations over its status are completed.

3. Remind U.S. policymakers of the bonds between U.S. Christians and the Christian Palestinian community. Urge their support for a special statute for Jerusalem with international guarantees to safeguard: 

Freedom of religion and conscience for all.

The equality before the law of the three religions, their institutions and followers in the City.

Freedom of access to and worship in the Holy Places for local Palestinians as well as international pilgrims. (As the heads of many U.S. churches wrote to President Clinton on September 6, 2000; "The current situation of the closure of Jerusalem to Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza unless they obtain a permit of entry from Israel is a totally unacceptable and discriminatory practice.") 

WRITE TO: 

The Honorable (first name, last name) 
The White House
Washington, D.C. 200500
Dear Mr. President, 

Secretary of State (first name, last name)
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Mr. or Madam Secretary, 

The Honorable (first name, last name) 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Washington, D.C. 20515 
Dear Representative (name),

The Honorable (first name, last name)
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator (name),