A Palestine-Israel Journal roundtable discussion took
place in Jerusalem on 19.2.01 on the subject of Jerusalem, with the
participation of Prof. Menachem Klein, senior lecturer in
the political science department at Bar-Ilan University and
research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies;
Ibrahim Dakkak, an engineer and specialist in Jerusalem
affairs; Prof. Nazmi Ju'beh, lecturer in the department of
history at Bir Zeit University; and Dr. Shmuel Berkovitz, an
attorney, an expert on Jerusalem and a research fellow at the
Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. His last book The Battle
for the Holy Places recently appeared in Hebrew. The latter two
participants took part only in the first part of the discussion.
The moderator was Dan Leon, co-managing editor of the
Palestine-Israel Journal.
Dan Leon: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been, and
remains, primarily a national conflict over the realization of
national aspirations. Jerusalem is part of the conflict, but it is
different. Is this because of the religious dimension? For Muslims,
Jews and Christians, how would you define the role, both locally
and worldwide, of the religious dimension in the future of
Jerusalem?
Ibrahim Dakkak: Jerusalem has increasingly become a hot
political issue and, in our political experience, a political
conflict. For most people the conflict over Jerusalem is a conflict
on the geography of Jerusalem. For others, it is a religious issue.
For the world, especially for the West, it is an issue that
threatens the stability of a highly sensitive area. For the
Palestinians, the geopolitical and religious dimensions are
intertwined. When I speak about the geographic dimension, I draw
attention to the official Israeli policy regarding the West Bank,
and its implementation of plans to separate the northern part from
the southern by creating "an Israeli-Jewish belt" around Jerusalem
and connecting Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley. As we, the
Palestinians, are aspiring to establish a viable independent
Palestinian state, we need continuity between the northern and
southern parts of the West Bank, which can only be achieved by
freeing Jerusalem, and the area extending from it to the Jordan
River, from Israeli occupation. Jerusalem's religious dimension,
irrespective of its authentic significance, is over-utilized by
Israel to justify its geopolitical expansionism. It should be noted
that the question of Jerusalem is a Palestinian issue; nonetheless,
it is, at the same time, a Palestinian-Arab-Islamic-Christian
issue.
Nazmi Ju'beh: I think it is very difficult to separate
national from religious dimensions in Jerusalem. They are so mixed
that one cannot solve one without also touching upon the other. The
three religions have clearly major interests, just as there are two
national groups with major aspirations in the city. The connection
between the religious and the national in Jerusalem is also
supported by the international dimension. The international
dimension for the Palestinians is the wider Arab interest in the
city, and both the other religions have the character of
international dimensions in the city. These dimensions, religious
and national, with their international aspects, have to be
respected and recognized by the three religions and the two
national groups. It is not enough to have a solution between the
Israelis and the Palestinians without taking into account the
international religious dimensions. The combination is highly
problematic and so would be any separation of religious and
national aspects.
Menachem Klein: The conflict over Jerusalem is a conflict
over symbols and over what one might call real estate - land - as
well as over power and control. Symbols include the religious as
well as the national. In measuring the two components, the national
is the more important. The conflict is between national, not
religious institutions, a state against other national
institutions. The common denominator is the national origin and
conflict between national institutions, while religious symbols are
used in order to promote national goals. It is very dangerous to
play with religious sentiments and this is particularly so in
Jerusalem. Up to now both sides, more or less, succeeded in
controlling their religious elements, though there were moments
when this was challenged. But religious institutions have been
generally placed under national supervision. Otherwise, there would
be a grave danger and this could ignite the whole
Israeli-Palestinian and Jewish-Muslim conflict.
Shmuel Berkovitz: I hesitated in coming here as regards the
question of whether this is the right time to start our peace path.
It is different when we meet Palestinians in time of regular war in
which Palestinians fight Israeli soldiers. These are the rules of
the game and I accept them. I don't accept the principle that you
don't talk when shooting is going on, but it is difficult for me to
talk of Jerusalem when Palestinians are shooting at Israeli
settlements or carrying out terror acts aimed at hurting women and
small children, or the terrifying example of a Palestinian girl
seducing a sixteen-year-old Israeli boy to Ramallah and his
shooting, and then the last incident of the killing of eight
soldiers who were waiting for lifts. It's difficult for me to be
here, and before speaking of Jerusalem, I must tell you,
Palestinians, that during the last four months you have broken all
the rules of war. It's surprising and disappointing for us Israelis
to see that in spite of the fact that our prime minister offered
you the most gratifying compromise that was ever proposed by an
Israeli prime minister, your reaction was not to continue the
talks, but shooting and bombing and terror and so on. You agreed in
the Oslo Accords to reject terror and violence and to conduct peace
negotiations. However, whenever the negotiations got stuck, you
started a campaign of terror and violence.
Nazmi Ju'beh: Do we have to continue hearing this? The
subject is Jerusalem. We Palestinians don't have to listen to a
lecture by you. In your ignorance you talk of your being victims,
while over 200 Palestinian children have been killed by your
soldiers. You're going to lecture me on morals? (Leaves the
room).
Ibrahim Dakkak: I have a battery of answers to your remarks.
If you want to talk about Jerusalem, this is not the way to address
the subject. Directing such accusations at us, means ending the
discussion. You say you were hesitant to share in this roundtable
discussion; I personally was doubly hesitant. Nonetheless, I had
hoped that there would be a rational discussion among responsible
participants and not mere political rhetoric.
In your thesis, you are ignoring international resolutions. You
attempt to build a solution on the issue of Jerusalem on an
Israeli-formulated basis. This flies in the face of international
consensus.
Shmuel Berkovitz: There is freedom of speech and you are
entitled to your views. The background to Jerusalem is political
and religious, and I tried to say that Barak offered a radical
compromise and Jerusalem cannot be separated from the general
situation. It was not the Jews who started the recent
Intifada.
Dan Leon: I think Dr. Berkovitz did a grave disservice to
the cause of peace in giving this propaganda speech. Whatever you
believe, to come to a Palestinian audience and put what you did on
the table at the beginning of a discussion is scandalous. I think
you should apologize because no Palestinians coming to a panel
sponsored by a joint organization can continue with the discussion
after what you said.
Shmuel Berkovitz: Maybe I am not a welcome guest and you
don't like my opinions. I voted for Barak. I respect the
Palestinians and their right to sovereignty. In my opinion, in the
framework of a real and final peace arrangement, Israel must
consider handing back to Palestinian sovereignty a considerable
part of East Jerusalem outside the Old City and its surroundings,
including the Temple Mount. If the Israelis don't like this idea,
the only solution will be division of sovereignty over the Temple
Mount. Had I not supported compromise (or any term you prefer), I
wouldn't have come here in the beginning.
Ibrahim Dakkak: You are forcing your views on us, and expect
us to accept your accusations, which are baseless. This is
unacceptable. I am aware that an aggressive culture toward the
Palestinians has been brewing in Israeli society, and you now have
demonstrated that to me.
Menachem Klein: I think that Shmuel Berkovitz confuses two
topics - the Intifada and Jerusalem. I think he is wrong, but his
perception is accepted by the majority of Israelis, including Labor
people. They see the Intifada as a response to Barak's proposals;
the Intifada and Jerusalem are related, but must be treated
differently.
Leila Dabdoub (co-managing editor, PIJ): We are a journal
that is open to all opinions, and we hoped to have a civilized
discussion. But it started with our being showered with insults and
our dignity being affronted. That is very difficult for us.
Shmuel Berkovitz: The best thing is for you to continue
without me, as I'm not useful here. I feel that I harmed the good
atmosphere and, while I don't regret what I said, I am prepared to
leave. To discuss Jerusalem we need a peace process and not an
Intifada. (Leaves the room).
There was a discussion as to whether the roundtable should
continue and, after a break, it was agreed to do so.
Dan Leon: What could be a possible solution for the Haram
al-Sharif/Temple Mount in a peace agreement?
Ibrahim Dakkak: The basic solution should rest on the status
quo ante. In other words, we have to go back to the pre-1967
situation. The other alternative is to go back to the 1947 UN
Resolution 181 (corpus separatum). Both cases respect the status of
the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount as a Muslim sanctuary, and the
other holy places in Jerusalem, historically established. These two
approaches are the only legalities that address the Jerusalem issue
and receive international recognition. For fifteen centuries the
Haram has been owned and run by the Muslims. Any change in its
Islamic status the Muslims will definitely consider a desecration.
For the Christian Palestinians, it is also important. It is part of
their Arab Palestinian national heritage. The Palestinians, for
their part, refuse any compromise along Israeli terms. From a
political and religious perspective, this is a Palestinian
Arab-Islamic sanctuary.
Menachem Klein: The question was about possible solutions
and I would differentiate between this and the subject of how the
negotiations developed on the ground. In these negotiations, all
sides involved, including the Americans, made mistakes. Both sides
discussed only one option of Clinton's proposals. The possible
solutions are varied and more than one might be acceptable to both
Palestinians and Israelis.
At Camp David one mistake was that the Israelis developed what I
call a "hegemonic discourse," meaning maintaining Israeli
sovereignty and demanding its official recognition, while agreeing
that the management would be that of the Palestinian Waqf. Then the
Israeli delegation came up with the proposal of building a
synagogue at one of the edges of the Haram. Later, the Israeli
government opened a more balanced discourse that they should, in my
view, have done from the beginning.
A discourse between equals calls either for sharing sovereignty, or
for postponing it, or for accepting "God's sovereignty."
Unfortunately, these ideas were passed over by all sides and Arafat
came up with the idea of Islamic sovereignty, initially rejected by
the Israelis, then for full Palestinian sovereignty. I believe,
like Clinton, that the gaps between the sides are related to the
symbolic issues and to respect for religious beliefs of both sides.
There have been a number of formulations guaranteeing effective
Palestinian control and sovereignty over the Haram while respecting
the religious convictions of the Jewish people.
If one checks in both religions, it was holy to the Muslims under
Israeli occupation and under the Crusaders and in Jewish tradition,
too, it was always the gate to Heaven. It was God's home where both
religions shared the same sort of holiness. It has nothing to do
with sovereignty, though both national movements have to come to
terms as political entities and it is not a fight between
religions. I see Arafat as a national not a religious leader. I
understand the importance for the Palestinian national movement of
ruling over the Haram, not for Islamic reasons but because of their
national interest. With this rule it would be a totally different
state from a Palestinian state without it.
Ibrahim Dakkak: Let me go back to a statement I heard from
Teddy Kollek. When I was in charge of the restoration of the damage
caused by arson to al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969, Mr. Kollek came with
some people, mainly Jews, to visit al-Haram. The guests asked Mr.
Kollek about the rebuilding of the Temple. His answer was "Let us
wait for the Messiah." This was a sort of pragmatic compromise. And
we, Palestinians, accept the compromise and are ready to wait for
the coming of the Messiah.
Prior to 1967, the Jews were requesting to be allowed to pray at
the Western Wall. They never mentioned any other request, let alone
ask for the control of the Temple Mount. After 1967 the position
changed dramatically. At that time, what you call the "national
ideology" vis-à-vis Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount developed
despite the Rabbinate's insistence that Jews are not permitted to
go up to the Haram. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, the chief chaplain of the
Israeli army at that time, singled himself out by demanding that
Jews be allowed to pray there and that the Haram be administered by
Israel. Moshe Dayan, then minister of defense, refused Goren's
demands and ordered the Israeli flag to be removed from the Dome of
the Rock; he then asked the Muslim leadership to discharge their
traditional duties as usual.
In Zionist ideology, Jerusalem was not a focal point - Herzl didn't
see Jerusalem as the potential capital of the Jewish state and
neither did Ahad Ha'am. Weizmann lived and built his research
institution in Rehovot. Even Ben-Gurion was not interested in the
Old City. Therefore, speaking of Israeli sovereignty over the Haram
is relatively new.
Concerning Clinton's suggestion that the Palestinians retain
sovereignty over the Haram provided that they respect the
convictions of the Jews, I as a Palestinian Muslim share Clinton's
idea. Islam has never said that the Jews shouldn't have their own
beliefs and convictions, nor prevented the Jews from practicing
their religious duties. On the contrary, Islam is the only religion
of the three monotheistic religions that does not deny Christianity
and Judaism.
At this juncture, let me clarify the following points:
* The status quo I refer to stands for regulating the rights of the
Jews, the Christians as well as the Muslims. Israel, making use of
its dominance over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, has been
trying to exercise sovereignty over Jerusalem, in violation of the
status quo.
* Israel, I claim, is trying in that sense to collect the spoils of
its victory in the 1967 war.
* Arafat has been compliant with international legality when he
demanded the withdrawal of Israel to the June 1967 borders.
Equally, his demand for Palestinian Jerusalem to be the capital of
the forthcoming Palestinian state and to exercise Palestinian
sovereignty over the Haram are firmly anchored in international
legality.
Menachem Klein: I see an option of separating the Haram,
which is a holy site and not a residential area, and other urban
municipal issues. The Haram is very special, unlike other
residential areas in Jerusalem, even the Old City. It is the most
important symbol and the core of Jerusalem for both sides and for
millions of believers, Jews and Muslims. There is an option besides
full Palestinian sovereignty, and as an exercise or test, we should
measure its cost and benefits. The way the negotiations proceeded
on both sides was in my thinking wrong. The holiness of the place
to Judaism is because there was once a Temple there. But it was a
mistake in the negotiations to combine the concepts of holiness and
of the Temple.
By raising the issue of the Temple, the Israeli delegation
immediately raised Palestinian, Muslim and Arab fears. President
Clinton wisely disconnected the two. In history there were
according to Jewish belief two Temples. For Islam, it is quite
different: the holiness of the Haram is not because of the Temple
but because of al-Aqsa etc., and this for them is also true of the
Western Wall. If the discourse is about Temples and rebuilding
them, there is total conflict. If it is about the issue of
accepting the legitimacy of the other to have his/her own view,
without imposition but with two different narratives, it is a
different story. Each side legitimizes the right of the other to
its own narrative. This could be achieved between national
movements, but not by the vast majority of religious leaders or
institutions, for whom it is either my God or narrative, or your
God or narrative. If we disconnect any future plan to rebuild the
Jewish Temple from giving legitimacy to the other side to have its
own narrative, or if the Palestinians accept the Jewish historical
and religious attachment to the place, this could be a kind of
solution. Otherwise, ignoring any Jewish historical or religious
attachment to the place would be unacceptable to the vast majority
of Israelis. Now you, Ibrahim, said that you accept the Jewish
attachment and that's OK.
Ibrahim Dakkak: For many centuries, Jerusalem was under
Muslim rule and the Jews used to come to the Wailing (Western) Wall
to pray. This means that Muslims have accepted the Jewish right to
their own narrative. What you are referring to now is a new
narrative, a political narrative that emerged after 1967. We
disapprove of such a narrative. On the other hand, the present-day
Jews who are ruling Israel are denying the Muslim-Arab-Palestinian
narrative. If we are to resort to reciprocity, then it is incumbent
upon Israel to accept our narrative.
Menachem Klein: You know better than I that there are
different ways to read history. But here, by re-discussing history,
we can find common ground for an agreement. This is one example of
a possible solution to the controversy over the Haram. There are
radical elements that need, and have, a totally different approach
to history; like the Temple Mount Faithful [an extremist Jewish
group that wants to pray on the Temple Mount and build a Third
Temple there - ed.] but they are not accepted by the general
public.
Ibrahim Dakkak: Let us forget about these different
factions. In the end, we have to come to a compromise as accepted
by Mr. Arafat, by the Arabs, by the Palestinians and by the Muslims
on the questions related to the Western Wall (though it is part of
the Haram compound) and the Jewish Quarter. In fact, it is up to
the Israeli Jews to allay the fears of Muslims over the Mosque, and
to let them pray freely and peacefully there.
Dan Leon: How do you see the political future of Jerusalem,
bearing in mind factors such as: the proximity in which the two
communities live and the difficulty of separation, as viewed by
Meron Benvenisti; the expropriation of Palestinian land in both
West and East Jerusalem; and the persistent slogans of Israeli
politicians about a "united, undivided capital of Israel for
eternity"?
Menachem Klein: Basically, I think that Clinton's proposals
are very good. We have in Jerusalem three cities: the religious,
holy city; the political city; and the urban city, that of the
residents. We spoke of the first. As for the second and third, in
principle, as regards the division of sovereignty, management, and
law, there must be special arrangements in daily life in various
fields. Both sides need this. For the benefit of all, the city must
remain physically open, with free access for each citizen to
his/her own capital and to the other. These principles, in spite of
the difficulties, were largely agreed at Camp David (not in
writing) as helping both sides find a solution for Jerusalem.
There is no way to divide the infrastructure. Where necessary,
there must be special arrangements for cooperation, but cooperation
between equals, not a dictate of one side over the other. In light
of the Intifada, from which Jerusalem fortunately escaped, the
problem of how both peoples maintain security in an open area with
free coming and going, needs better answers. There is no guarantee
that Jerusalem will continue to be relatively calm when the storm
is raging around us, and there may be escalation. Both sides have
to develop plans for dealing with security - while on other issues,
like superstructure, economy, building, housing, sewerage, water
and tourism, plans are already more highly developed.
I used to argue with Meron Benvenisti, because I see that there is
a way to divide the area, and we have to bear in mind two
conclusions resulting from the facts on the ground, which both
sides accepted at Camp David. One, there is no return to the
pre-1967 situation, and two, that in no way can the present
municipal boundaries become the final-status borders. Basically the
principle of two capitals was accepted at Camp David.
Ibrahim Dakkak: This is a complicated issue and all the many
proposals suggested by so many amateurs on the future of Jerusalem
are ideas that cannot hold water when tested on the ground. Let me
mention some of the difficulties:
First, we have two different cities: the old and the new. Each of
the two cities is different from the other. Let me focus on the Old
City. There we face the problems of Christians, the Jewish
quarters, the holy sites and their specific management. There were
lines drawn to divide the Old City according to denominations. The
Vatican, on the other hand, has been talking of an
internationalized administration. None of these suggestions can
solve the problem emanating from the absence of confidence between
the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews.
Second, the pre-1967 Palestinian Jerusalem was seven square
kilometers in area. Now Israel speaks of a "unified" Jerusalem of
about 170 square kilometers. We have to agree on the area of
Jerusalem. UN resolutions 242 and 338 (the basis of my argument)
speak of Palestinian Jerusalem - East Jerusalem of July 4, 1967.
Jewish neighborhoods and settlements built after 1967 are
considered, according to international law, simply illegal.
Third, the salient problem is the question of how to restore
confidence between Palestinians and Jews, to convince them to live
together peacefully (I won't use the world "friendly") after so
many years of enmity, animosity and Intifadas.
Fourth, the management of the city is complex in terms of municipal
services. Such a complexity is to be addressed in terms of
expenditures and property rights parity.
Fifth, how can we regulate the accessibility of the Palestinians
from the Palestinian state and the Israelis from Israel to the
separated/unified Jerusalem? Likewise, how do you manage the
accessibility of the Palestinians and Israelis from Jerusalem when
entering each other's sovereign state?
I agree that when we speak of two sovereignties in one city, there
are many potential problems. If both parties have the will to find
the proper ways to solve them, they will find a way.
Leila Dabdoub: When we speak of dual sovereignty and an open
city, it seems to me that we have kept West Jerusalem out of bounds
and we are just discussing East Jerusalem, how to share it and
administer it. Before 1948, many of the inhabitants and eighty
percent of the property in West Jerusalem were Palestinian. How do
the Israelis view this basic problem, in addition to the problems
of accessibility?
Menachem Klein: The fears are on both sides. I have heard
Palestinians express fears about the attractions of Jerusalem to
people from their more conservative society. About residential and
property rights, basically there are two options: the principle (as
Clinton suggested) of Arab areas being Palestinian and Jewish areas
Israeli, with nobody buying property on the other side; or all the
Jerusalemites sharing the same Jerusalem. In my view the Israeli
Jerusalem is not only Rehavia or Kiryat Yovel (which are very new
areas), but also East Jerusalem. As you Palestinians have
historical memories, properties and origins, in Lifta or Baka'a,
Jews have attachments not only to new West Jerusalem.
Dan Leon: This sounds as if "what is ours is ours, and what
is yours is ours."
Menachem Klein: No, I can't ignore history, like the
Palestinian attachment to Malha, Lifta, or Ein Karem. A person can
be allowed to live in an area where he feels he belongs according
to his personal history. The question is how to do it so as not to
harm good neighborliness. In the Muslim Quarter, the Jewish
settlers are not good neighbors but enemies. One has to find a
principle that accepts the right of each Jerusalemite to live in
all of Jerusalem, because Jerusalem is not east or west but both,
historically. There are different communities and one should let
people live in different neighborhoods as long as one accepts
living in peace with one's neighbors. Basically, after all, we have
two national movements sharing the same area.
Ibrahim Dakkak: Oversimplification is as dangerous as is
overtheorization. These are wonderful concepts on paper, but, in
reality, you have the actual problem of a Jew living in Baka'a on
some Palestinian's property; or a person whose property was
expropriated in French Hill and finds no place to build a house for
his family. Despite all these difficulties, we, as responsible
persons, should do our utmost to find rational solutions to the
many problems, in order to avoid creating a city bereft of peace,
or separating its two parts by a "Berlin" wall.
Menachem Klein: About expropriated lands, as you know the
Palestinians wanted to include the Jewish settlements in Jerusalem
among those settlements for which there would be a land exchange,
or swap. The Israelis spoke of neighborhoods, not settlements, and,
in terms of the whole area, this is a very small percentage.
Ibrahim Dakkak: A peaceful solution in Jerusalem calls for
parity between Israelis and Palestinians. The Israelis have left
very little land for the expansion of the Palestinian population
and responding to our natural increase. If we are kept within the
ring of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem, the intolerable
housing shortage and overcrowdedness will worsen. We must be
allowed to retrieve our expropriated land or be compensated for it
in kind in order to build. In principle, I am not against land
exchange, as long as it is fair. In all circumstances, settlements
around Jerusalem should be evacuated in order to provide place for
the Palestinians.
Menachem Klein: There is no doubt about the shortage of
housing. Basically we should think about the bulk of the built-up
area and not the existing master plan. There is plenty of land, for
example, between Ma'aleh Adumim and Anata and it should be planned
together by both municipalities, bearing in mind the Palestinian
shortage of housing. I am against all unilateral planning. There
are empty lands and green areas suitable for Palestinian building,
according to decisions by Palestinian or joint bodies.
Ibrahim Dakkak: Sound planning neither accepts nor rejects
the status quo but responds to the need of the people. This was not
followed by the Israeli administration. It calls for a response to
the needs of the population in terms of sewerage, water,
recreation, preservation areas, etc., and that is why it cannot be
taken for granted that settlements are fixed and cannot be moved. I
think part of the settlements probably have to be moved.
Dan Leon: I want to thank the participants and I apologize
for what happened earlier in the evening, which is very much
against the spirit of the Palestine-Israel Journal.
Editors' Note
Dr. Berkovitz requested that, apart from the protocol, we publish
his views on the subjects under discussion, as
follows:
The Palestinians agreed in the Oslo Accords to reject terror and
violence and to conduct peace negotiations. However, whenever the
negotiations get stuck, you started a campaign of terror and
violence and found artificial pretexts for this. This is what
happened in September 1996 when you started bloody disturbances
seemingly because of the opening of the northern entrance of the
Western Wall tunnel, and in September 2000,when you started a new
Intifada seemingly because Ariel Sharon visited the Temple
Mount.
I respect the Palestinians and their demand for sovereignty. In my
opinion, in the framework of a real and final peace arrangement,
Israel must hand back to Palestinian sovereignty a considerable
part of East Jerusalem outside the Old City and its surroundings
(outside the Ophel, the City of David, the Mount of Olives, and
Mount Scopus) and in security range of the new Jewish neighborhoods
established after June 1967. The Jewish Quarter, The Western Wall,
the Ophel, the City of David, the Shiloah spring, the Mount of
Olives and Mount Scopus will be territorially contiguous and under
Israeli sovereignty. In other parts of the Old City, special
guardianship will be necessary, with international
involvement.
On the Temple Mount, I suggest handing over to Palestinian
sovereignty the area of the mosques. The remaining part of the
Mount will remain under Israeli sovereignty. A wall would be built
separating the two sections and an international force should look
after security. No excavations should be carried out anywhere in
the Temple Mount area except by mutual agreement and with
international supervision.
<