|
Jerusalem: The Eye of the Storm
By Corinne
Whitlatch, Executive Director
~ March 2006~
On a clear day, a sharp-eyed person standing on the
heights of Jerusalem has a wide overview of Israel and
the West Bank. Jerusalem is in the minds and hearts of
millions of people, on every day from everywhere that
there are Jews, Christians and Muslims. In prayers, in
songs and in religious art, the holy city is present,
a living symbol of profound and timeless significance.
To speak literally, Jerusalem is first of all, a
modern city for its residents with some concerns
familiar to us such as traffic, crime, schools and
discrimination. At the next literal level, Jerusalem
is both Israel's designated capital, where
parliamentarians deliberate in the Knesset, and the
principal city of Palestinian society and the economy.
Yet, ironically, Jerusalem is not recognized as
Israel’s capital by the international community, and
the nascent state of Palestine has no sovereignty over
any part of it. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims
of East Jerusalem, which was occupied by Israel in
1967 and annexed to the state, live in a surreal
situation: Following pressure from the U.S., Israel
allowed the Palestinians of East Jerusalem to vote in
the January elections for the Palestinian Legislative
Council.
Jerusalem is at the center of the conflict and will
surely be at the center of its solution, which at the
present time is obscured by the thunder and lightning
of political storms.
Palestinians in the Maelstrom
The Palestinian Legislative Council election results
surprised many observers. The victory by candidates
associated with Hamas has sparked numerous debates
regarding democracy, the predicament of the
Palestinian people, the role of the international
donor community, and the future of Israeli-
Palestinian peacemaking. Commentators argue about whom
to blame for Fatah’s loss, but there is widespread
agreement that the elections were remarkably free and
fair. Just how Palestinian governance will congeal is
not easy to predict and, with events changing rapidly,
the situation will differ from the time of this
writing and your reading.
Hamas, with a 20-year-old charter that deserves its
designation as a terrorist organization, campaigned as
a domestic reform movement. Khalil Shikaki, the
well-regarded Palestinian pollster, published a
February 15 revision of election-day exit polling
results to take into account those who refused to talk
to pollsters. The “Palestinian vote for Hamas on the
day of elections should not, however, be interpreted
as a vote against the peace process. About 60 percent
of all voters identified themselves as supporters of
the peace process, while only 17 percent saw
themselves as opposed to it and 23 percent saw
themselves somewhere in the middle between opposition
and support.”
But given Hamas’ history of both vitriolic rhetoric
and horrific acts, and its staunch rejection of
Israel’s existence and negotiated agreements, the U.S.
and Quartet consider it a pre-condition of foreign aid
directed to a Hamas-led government that it renounce
violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
In a forum sponsored by Senators Richard Lugar (R-
IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rob Malley (a former
negotiator in the Clinton Administration, now with the
International Crisis Group), reminded listeners of the
alternative to Hamas’s victory – a Fatah-led
Palestinian Authority with strong opposition from
Hamas and a continued stalemate. A similar point was
made by Zeev Schiff, a military analyst for Israel’s
Haaretz newspaper, “Deep in my heart, I know it’s
impossible to reach any peace agreement with the
Palestinians without Hamas” because without it, the
Palestinian Authority (PA) is not representative
enough.
Campaign Season in Israel
As Palestinians maneuver to form their new government,
which may take weeks, Israel is in full campaign mode,
preparing for its national election on March 28.
Thomas Friedman, the widely syndicated columnist,
wrote about the dovish sentiment of the voters. The
Likud party launched their campaign with accusations
that the new Kadima party plans to pull Israel back to
the 1967 borders. Likud quickly backed off that line,
Friedman surmises, because Likud realized that many
Israeli voters like that idea.
Ehud Olmert, the Interim Prime Minister and
Sharon’s heir-apparent in leading Kadima, said Israel
would retain “united Jerusalem” and that the
completion of the separation barrier in the Jerusalem
area is a top priority. Labor party leader Amir Peretz,
an early member of Peace Now and a signer of the 2002
Geneva Accords, hastened to make clear that he too
would not divide Jerusalem.
An author of the Geneva Accords and head of the
leftist party Meretz, Yossi Beilin, actually opened
his campaign with an ad that says: “Beilin Will Divide
Jerusalem.” A decade ago the campaign slogan of Likud
leader Bibi Netanyahu, “Peres will divide Jerusalem,”
was considered a wicked libel. Today, it’s a campaign
slogan, indicating the proposal is no longer taboo.
What Next?
The huge political question is whether the soon-to- be
elected Israeli government and the new Palestinian
government will be willing and able to negotiate with
each other. With Hamas defeating Fatah as lead party
of the Palestinian Authority, the distinction between
the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the
PA gains new significance. It is the PLO, and not the
PA, which has negotiated with and signed agreements
with Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas is both President of
the PA and Chairman of the PLO.
If a cease-fire holds, the weary public and wary
politicians on both sides may prefer a continued
stalemate. Israel may choose to act unilaterally,
severing physical and diplomatic contact with the
Palestinians while the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority
sticks to the domestic focus of the campaign, cleaning
up corruption and delivering improved living
conditions in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Bush Administration is continuing to refer to
the Road Map peace plan and final status negotiations.
Some analysts think the Road Map is history and that a
front-ended approach might be less vulnerable to
sabotage. This tactic would begin with some variation
of the Clinton-Taba-Geneva two-state solution plan,
with the Israelis and Palestinians responsible for
negotiating how to get there. One version has a draft
peace-treaty put to a referendum by both Israelis and
Palestinians. Caution is necessary, because another
final-status push that fails cannot be risked at this
time.
The Arab League document of March, 2002 may come
back into play. Hamas’ acceptance of the Arab peace
proposal might be seen as equivalent to an explicit
recognition of Israel. The plan, referred to as the
“Beirut Initiative” or the “Saudi Plan,” was buried in
the rubble of a large terrorist attack in Netanya that
was carried out by Hamas. This Saudi-initiated plan
holds out the vision of the Arab Countries and Israel
living “in peace and good neighborliness and
provid[ing] future generations with security,
stability, and prosperity” pending Israel’s withdrawal
from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The plan
stipulates that East Jerusalem would be the capital of
Palestine.
“East
Jerusalem is the heart of Palestinian society; without
it as the Palestinian capital there is no contiguous
state, no symbol of reconciliation between Jews,
Muslims and Christians, no peace… There needs to be a
fresh focus by the international community on ending
the occupation of East Jerusalem. Despite how much of
an uphill battle it would be, I don’t see any other
way that would really move us toward an end to the
conflict.”
–The head of an international organization providing
humanitarian services in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Do No Harm
Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation, speaking to
Congressional staffers in mid-February, predicted that
substantive progress cannot be expected for two to
three years because the necessary level of trust does
not exist now and because the Bush Administration is
engaged elsewhere. He expects an eventual settlement
along the lines of the two-state solution laid out by
President Clinton as well as in the Taba negotiations
and Geneva Accords. For now, Jones urges a policy of
limiting damage – don’t make getting to that end goal
more difficult.
But some harm is being concocted in the halls of
Congress and, according to press reports, by some in
the Administration. There is legislation that aims to
permanently restrict U.S. relations with Palestinian
officials and, by means of cutting financial aid,
bring the Hamas-led Palestinian government to its
knees and out the door. In human terms, cuts of aid
from the U.S. and the E.U., coupled with Israel’s
decision to retain the $50 million it collects monthly
in taxes for the PA, translates into humanitarian
disaster. Currently, 60 percent of the population
lives below the poverty line.
We need to recognize that the victory of Hamas
changes the relationship of the U.S. government and
the Palestinian Authority. There is a difference
between appropriate legislation intended to moderate
the new Palestinian government and efforts to
collectively punish the Palestinians, bringing them
and their aspirations of freedom to utter defeat.
Advocates for peace and justice will urge lawmakers
to keep in mind that the objective still is a secure
Israel that is recognized by its neighbors, and an
economically viable state of Palestine, that is
recognized as legitimate at home and abroad. And,
central to the two-state solution of the Clinton/Taba/Geneva
plans is a sharing of the sovereignty and landscape of
Jerusalem.
Sowing Seeds of Peace
“Despite the fact that the current discussion on
Jerusalem may seem detached from reality, as there is
no indication of the renewal of the peace process and
bringing an end to the conflict, the reality in the
Middle East is ever-changing, and the seeds of peace
must be sown ahead of time so they may bloom when the
time is right.” According to Ora Ahirmeir, director of
the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, Israel and
the Palestinians must permit the international
community to take part in the administration of
Jerusalem’s holy and historical sites.
This groundbreaking study from a mainstream Israeli
think-tank urges the Israeli public to rethink their
traditional opposition to 3rd party monitoring and
settling disputes. Alternative options include
territorial division of the Old City Basin (the Old
City and historical sites near it) with international
supervision; joint-management and distribution of
powers in the basin, with international backing; and
authority over the historical basin entrusted with an
international body. The options of full Israeli
sovereignty and full Palestinian sovereignty are
deemed likely to be rejected by one side or the other.
The RAND Corporation addressed security issues
regarding Jerusalem in a newly released study,
“Building a Successful Palestinian State: Security,”
which is a companion to earlier RAND reports. From the
report, “The analysis shows there is no security
impediment to Jerusalem being the capital for both
Israel and Palestine. There are a number of possible
ways for jurisdiction and security responsibilities in
East Jerusalem to be shared by the two sides. From a
security perspective, there could be international
aspects, especially in regard to Temple Mount (known
as the Haram al-Sharif to Muslims), with either mixed
Israeli-Palestinian control or participation of
others.”
The recommendations of an international role meshes
with the principle set by the Holy See that the rights
of the various communities “must be ensured” and that
“the Holy City’s special religious status and shrines
proper to each religion should be protected by an
appropriate juridical safeguard that is
internationally respected and guaranteed.”
Advocacy Action
PLEASE NOTE:
The “Christian Clergy Letter for Israeli-Palestinian
Peace” will be released this weekend at Ecumenical
Advocacy Days and we will provide you with the full
text of the letter and further guidance in a few
days. The below action should be delayed until next
week.
In this time of uncertainty and pessimism,
when Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking seems derailed,
citizen advocacy is even more important. The
Administration and Congress need to know that U.S.
churches, church members and clergy want the United
States government to place a high priority on
promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians,
to prevent actions that would harm future negotiations
and to recognize that sharing Jerusalem is key to a
successful two-state solution to the conflict.
Advocates are asked to encourage local Church
leaders to write to the President and to send copies
of that letter to their representative and two
senators and to Churches for Middle East Peace’s
office. As examples: members of a congregation
could join their pastor in signing a letter; a
minister might invite others in the synod or diocese
to co- sign; a priest could ask clergy of neighborhood
churches to sign together; a regional executive could
organize a letter from the local council of churches.
Include the following points in the letter or go
to www.cmep.org for the “Christian Clergy
Letter for Israeli- Palestinian Peacemaking.”
- We write to urge your active, sustained
leadership in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace.
- Our churches have long-standing policy
supporting a negotiated two-state solution to the
conflict that leads to a secure Israel alongside a
viable state of Palestine.
- We embrace the vision of Jerusalem as the
heritage, home and hope of two peoples and three
faiths, with Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel
and the future state of Palestine.
Toward the goal of peace, we ask you to:
- 1. Reject unilateral actions by Israel that
would prejudge final status negotiations on borders
and the status of Jerusalem,
- 2. Urge the Palestinian government to commit to
nonviolence, to recognize Israel and to accept
previous agreements,
- 3. Continue to engage the moderate Palestinian
leadership and help the Palestinian people,
- 4. Provide assurances that Jerusalem will be
shared, and
- 5. Promote religious freedom in the Holy Land
and recognize the important role of the Christian
community.
Mail the letter to:
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500 |
