The headline “Israelis Act to Encircle East Jerusalem” in the February 7 Washington Post was welcome news. For until then, little attention had been paid to the Israeli government’s effort to establish Jewish enclaves in and around East Jerusalem to form a ring that would separate the Old City and its holy sites from the West Bank. 

The Washington Post’s investigation found that the Israeli government is subsidizing Jewish groups that are deliberately undermining peace efforts. A spokesman for one of the most prominent private groups involved in moving Jews into Arab neighbors is quoted, “If, as a result of what we do, it means the city can’t be divided, fine, Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people. It would be a disaster for the Jewish world if Jerusalem were divided and a Palestinian state was created on Jewish land.”

The collaborative efforts of the government and settlers to make it impossible for East Jerusalem to be part of a Palestinian state is not news, but has been largely ignored by the Bush Administration until recently. It appears that in late January the Administration did press Israel to stop its application of the 50-year-old Absentee Property Law (to confiscate millions of dollars of East Jerusalem property belonging to Palestinians). On her first trip to the region as secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice warned Israel in an interview with Israel’s Channel 1, “We do believe that unilateral steps in Jerusalem, particularly those that might appear to prejudge future discussions, would be unhelpful at this time.”  

Secretary of State Rice was reiterating the long-held policy that the final status of Jerusalem can only be determined through negotiations between the two parties. The United States does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and regards East Jerusalem, in accordance with UNSC Resolution 242, as occupied territory.  In 1995 Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Every six months since then, Presidents Clinton and Bush have signed national security waivers that allow them not to carry out the law’s mandate.

Jerusalem-- Close to the Heart

Jerusalem lies at the heart of both the hope for peace and the rage that fuels the conflict – for the beleaguered Palestinians and Israelis, for the whole Middle East region and for Jews, Christians and Muslims everywhere.  The profound religious symbolism of Jerusalem to each of the Abrahamic faiths is impossible for any one individual to comprehend. The heart of Jerusalem is the Old City where the Temple Mount and the Dome of the Rock occupy the same space.  Jews, Christians and Muslims share the belief that the Rock is where Abraham offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice.

With the Old City being located in East Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to worship at their sacred Western Wall during 1948-1967, when Jordan held sovereignty. Following the 1967 War, Israel quickly annexed East Jerusalem and the Old City onto the state. But there is nothing sacred about the city’s municipal borders, which Israel drew to include not only East Jerusalem, but also nearby Arab villages, their lands, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. In order to erase the 1967 border and make the city indivisible, Israel has since built large housing complexes for Jews on the annexed land, which retains its status as occupied.  In 1980 Israel declared united and expanded Jerusalem its capital.

East Jerusalem is far more than the center of religious life for Palestinians, it is also the hub of Palestinian economic, cultural and institutional life. Among those institutions are the Lutheran’s Augusta Victoria Hospital, built to serve both Christian and Muslim Palestinians on the Mount of Olives overlooking the Old City.  The Episcopalian St. George’s Cathedral and College lie on historic Nablus Road near the intersection with Saleh Eddin Street.

The inclusion of East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state is central to its viability, both economically and politically. The designation of Al-Quds (Arabic for Jerusalem) as the capital of a Palestinian state is absolutely necessary for Arab recognition of Israel’s legitimacy and of its capital being West Jerusalem.

Jewish Advocates of Two Capitals

Americans for Peace Now makes the case. “For the sake of Israel’s security and stability, a formula must be found to share the city between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Jews, Christians and Muslims. The emergence of a Palestinian capital in Arab areas of Jerusalem does not undermine Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital. To the contrary, such a development would clear the way—at long last—for international recognition of Jewish Jerusalem, with a strong Jewish majority, as Israel’s eternal capital.”

Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, was founded a couple of years ago to activate American Jews by Marcia Freedman, a former member of Israel’s Knesset. Among its founding principles is: “The establishment and recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of both states. Such recognition must also insure unfettered access to all religious sites in Israel and in the future Palestinian state to all Jews, Muslims and Christians, regardless of nationality or sovereignty of the sites.”

No Easy Solution

At Camp David in July of 2000, when President Clinton was struggling to get an agreement on Jerusalem, and other final status issues, between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, neither leader had broached the topic with their public and neither could have made the necessary compromises. 

Nevertheless, once the notion of Jerusalem being the capital of both states was introduced, proposals flowed. President Clinton’s “parameters” were the starting point for the Taba permanent status negotiations which quickly followed. Various elements were dissected for consideration – sovereignty, open city, capital for two states, Holy Basin and the Old City, and Holy sites (Western Wall and the Wailing Wall, and Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount).  

It seemed amazing that people were deliberating about whether the Armenian quarter of the Old City would be under Israeli or Palestinian sovereignty. But, those heady hopeful days were consumed by the roaring anger of the second intifadeh, sparked by candidate Ariel Sharon’s “visit” to the Temple Mount.

Even during the cycle of violence of the second intifadeh, when peace negotiations seemed impossible, some Israelis and Palestinians worked to show that compromises could be made for the sake of peace. The Geneva Accords, a model of a peace agreement, states that “The Parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty,” with the details left for authorized negotiators in the future.  

A concurrent peace initiative, “The People’s Voice” was promoted among ordinary Israelis and Palestinians. “Jerusalem will be an open city, the capital of two states. Freedom of religion and full access to holy sites will be guaranteed to all. Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will come under Palestinian sovereignty; Jewish neighborhoods under Israeli sovereignty. Neither side shall exercise sovereignty over the holy places. The state of Palestine will be designated ‘Guardian of the Temple Mount’ for the benefit of Muslims.  Israel will be designated the ‘Guardian of the Western Wall’ for the benefit of the Jewish people. The status quo on Christian holy sites will be maintained. No excavation will take place in or underneath the holy sites.” 

The groundwork is now ready for negotiations on Jerusalem’s future status; Israelis and Palestinians are becoming familiar with the language of sharing, of compromise, of safeguards and the division of administrative functions. This time around the barriers to an agreement are different; this time there are concrete barriers.

Concrete Barriers

It is obvious—from the Israeli Ministry of Defense’s map of the new route of the West Bank barrier—that the plan is to wall Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank, ending hope for a viable Palestinian state. When the Cabinet ratified the pullout from Gaza it also approved incorporating Maale Adumim and Gush Etzion—large settlement blocs to the east and south of Jerusalem—into the Israeli side of the barrier. The barrier’s dark line on the map looks like a border, a border that not only retains total Israeli sovereignty over the city, but also blocks access to the West Bank. 

“Jerusalem is being walled in for the first time since 1535,” says Israeli attorney Daniel Seidemann. Days after the Six-Day War, Moshe Dayan tore down the walls between East and West Jerusalem and began the campaign, followed by all successive governments, to create facts on the ground that would make Jerusalem a physically indivisible city. “That policy, whether one regrets it or not, has been largely successful; Israelis and Palestinians in Jerusalem are akin to Siamese twins sharing more or less vital organs.” Consequently, wherever the barrier is built in Jerusalem, it creates a humanitarian problem of enormous proportions for the 230,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem. A report released in January by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies states that as many as 130,000 Jerusalem Arabs will need to pass through the passages and checkpoints along the barrier going in and around the city on a daily basis, resulting in a higher-level of friction between the Jews and Arabs living there.                                                             

There are different plans for the barrier being implemented at different places in Jerusalem. There is former Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert’s plan to place the barrier on the municipal boundary, although it is unrecognized internationally and its location not known by the people living there. Then there is Prime Minister Sharon’s “Greater Jerusalem” approach – expanding the barrier deep into the West Bank to include large settlement blocs, which will dismember the northern West Bank from the south as well as prevent its contiguity with Jerusalem.

Writing in Ha’aretz, Amira Hass forecasts, “As of July, Palestinian Jerusalemites will not be allowed to go to Ramallah. That’s when the wall in Jerusalem will be completed, and the Qalandiya checkpoint will be turned into a form of a ‘border terminal,’ even though it is far from the Green Line. Those who want to go to Ramallah will have to ask for special permits…”

Isolating Bethlehem

Hanna J. Nasser, the Mayor of Bethlehem, wrote Churches for Middle East Peace on February 17, and reported that the Israeli High Court rejected a petition from the Bethlehem Municipality to stop the “Israeli expansionist project” at Rachel’s Tomb area. “This means [a] green light to the Israeli military to finalize the works they have started to seize Palestinian land, construct a road and wall to wrap the Tomb with its surroundings in order to annex them and to include them under permanent Israeli sovereignty.”

“I would like to convey my grave concern over the catastrophic effects of this decision on Bethlehem and its future.  Consequently, Bethlehem will be suffocated, its historic and main entrance closed, its northern lands isolated behind the wall and a dear and vital part of it will be stripped off from its natural environment.”

“I believe such practices materialize the policy of occupation and the policy of might rather than dedicating justice and respect to others’ rights. They certainly do not help in building bridges of trust especially during this new era our region is witnessing to revive the stalemate[d] peace process.”

Suggested Action:

Even as hope has been restored for Israeli-Palestinian peace making, it is necessary and wise to maintain vigilance lest the gains be overwhelmed by facts-on-the-ground that render peace impossible.  Without doubt, the recent decisions by the Israelis and Palestinians to turn away from violence and to take significant steps toward a new era of peacemaking are monumental. Their leaders face dangerous opposition from militants pledged to resist authority. The unfolding process is sure to be fraught with setbacks, including acts of violence, and doubts.  So, it is with a spirit of unequivocal commitment to a negotiated resolution of the conflict leading toward a two-state solution that peace-advocates’ concerns about Jerusalem and the barrier should be raised.  

While advocates will want to tailor their advocacy and education efforts to be relevant to what is currently on the policymakers’ agendas, the primacy of  Jerusalem necessitates it being woven into the ultimate policy objective: two viable states living side-by-side in peace and security with Jerusalem as the capital of both. Sharing Jerusalem is the key to two viable states – Israel and Palestine – living in peace and security.

In addressing the damage being done by Israel’s building of the barrier in and around Jerusalem, highlight the Israeli High Court’s ruling in late June of 2004 that the route must be altered if it impinges too much on the lives of Palestinians or expropriates land unnecessarily.

U.S. policy is not the problem in this case, it’s a matter of implementation. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Kurtzer, has given assurances to CMEP in the context of writing about land seizures in East Jerusalem that the Administration’s position on the route of the barrier construction has not changed.  David Satterfield, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State said on January 27, “We had seen positive progress made by the government of Israel in terms of the routing of the separation barrier. We hope that progress continues. Jerusalem is an especially sensitive area for the wall. We’re deeply concerned over aspects of the routing of the barrier in that area. We’re also concerned about any steps, whether it’s related to the wall or other actions, that make starting and sustaining a process of rebuilding trust and confidence harder, rather than easier.” 

For more information on Jerusalem, visit CMEP's Shared Jerusalem Resource Center