Israel came to control Jerusalem in stages: first, in the 1948 war
when it took the western side, mostly the then-fashionable
residential district (Upper and Lower Bag'a, Katamon, Talbieh,
Mamilla and Shama'a, parts of Abu Tor, of Musrara and of Rehavia);
the surrounding environs to the west, southwest and northwest
(Ufta, Oeir Yassin, Ein Karem, EI-Malha) and the heart of the
then-modern commercial center. Later, in 1967, it cap¬tured
the Old City and its surrounding environs to the north, east and
south.
Israel's development of Jerusalem, East and West, did not however
begin in real earnest until after 1967. As we also know, Israel's
intensive post-1967 development program involved housing and
associated infrastructure in a now unilaterally annexed and
expanded territory across the Green Line, designed to: (a) create
an essentially unified metropolitan complex spread indiscriminately
across what were once borderlines, no-man's land, village and town
district lines, as well as territory confiscated for this purpose
(about 22,000 dunums); and (b) ensure that this web of
infrastructure extensions would to all intents and purposes
encircle and disintegrate the territorial and demographic spread of
the eastern, once-entirely Arab populated part. The aim was to
render this into a disaggregated or scattered collection of
habitats or areas, wholly abandoned by the construction improvement
program.
We also all know that while this feverish Jewish construction
activity was underway, a similarly feverish policy was applied to
deny building permits for the Arab population, which had doubled in
size over the 27¬year period since 1967. On average, the total
sum of housing unit permits made available to the Arab residents of
Jerusalem over the entire 27-year period (not much exceeding
7,500), equals the annual rate of such permits made available for
Jewish construction. Even so, the major part of the per¬mits
given to Arab residents came against the background, and in the
con¬text, of the forced evacuation of Arab inhabitants from
the Jewish or Moghrabi quarter of the Old City.
In population terms, the demographic landscape was transformed,
placing over 150,000 Jewish inhabitants across the Green Line, and
making the east¬ern part of the city almost equally divided
between its Arab and Jewish resi¬dents. As an aside, it should
be noted that, together with this figure which many observers seem
to gloss over, Israeli settlers in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories presently number well over a quarter of a million
inhabitants.
It may seem strange, against the background of this political and
human affront, that a Palestinian Jerusalemite whose sensitivities
have become so over-politicized, and whose national existence in
the city seems threatened, should nonetheless still regard the
saddest part of this overall development onslaught to be the
ravishing of the hills, valleys and countryside of the city.
Religious design may still posit Jerusalem as the terrestrial
gateway to the divine world, as evidenced, in Islam for example,
through the story of ascension - a tradition whose significance
seems universally unappreciat¬ed. But looking today on
Jerusalem's cement and mortar landscape, as indeed on its human
landscape, it is hard not to feel saddened by the
dis¬appearance of that unique fusion of sunlight and earth
texture in which the entire pastoral surroundings basked.
I hope the day will come, after a political settlement has been
finalized, when minds will turn to preserving the spiritual
distinctness of Jerusalem and its environs. But my mission here is
less to mourn the past or the pre¬sent as it is to provide a
few sketches of a possible future.
The Guiding Principle
Briefly, my personal approach to the Jerusalem problem, as to the
Palestinian problem more generally, is guided by a principle which
Palestinians do not in general savor, namely, the de facto
existence of Israel on the map; and another principle which the
Israelis do not in general savor, namely, that "the goods" must be
equitably shared between Israelis and Palestinians. Without either
of these two principles as an ingredient in the coexistence formula
to be designed, I fear that residents of the city ¬as indeed
of the country - will most likely discover that theirs is the
gate¬way to hell rather than to celestial bliss. But also,
without these two ingredients in any possible compromise formula, I
feel it wouldn't be necessary to ask anyone to speculate about
peace in the first place - one side or the other can simply bring
about what they desire by force if they can. Neither
princi¬ples of reason, nor principles of morality need be
brought to bear. It becomes obvious that Palestinians and Israelis
must find a formula in which they can equitably share the
goods.
In the country at large, as also in Jerusalem the metropolis, two
distinct approaches may be considered. Rights may either be divided
distributively among individuals, or they may be spliced between
collective entities or groups. If one looks at the country as a
whole, the distributive approach would imply that each Palestinian
and each Israeli would have equal politi¬cal rights. These
would include the right to individual security in one's home, the
right to be repatriated to one's home if one is deprived of the
first right, and the right to be a full citizen - meaning, to be a
participant to the consti¬tutional extent possible in the
determination of one's future, and to be equal in that respect with
all citizens. The application of a distributive system like this
would obviously mean the establishment of a democratic, binational
and multireligious polity, after adjustments are introduced to
compensate for rights - especially repatriation - that cannot be
literally applied.
On the same equitable scale, but approached from the opposite end,
that of separating or splicing rather than of integrating and
sharing, rights can be divided between the collective entities or
groups to which individuals belong, thus between the Israeli and
Palestinian peoples, and thus in the form of two separate
states.
The same principle of sovereign parity can be applied to the
Jerusalem metropolis, again with the same choice between two
approaches. Either the right to sovereignty is divided
distributively among the Jerusalemites, regardless of citizenship
or present residence status, or it is divided through separation
and splicing between the two polities, Israel and Palestine.
Two Theoretical Models
However, it might be argued, given the needs and sensitivities
associated with Jerusalem, that a "perfect" model would be one
which is to all intents and purposes a mixed version of the two. In
this third model, a basic sov¬ereign line may be kept which is
porous (or permeable) and invisible enough on the one hand to allow
for a maximization of sharing; but which is substantive enough on
the other hand to allow for the required degree of separation. It
may be continuous enough to maintain an adherence to the historic
Green Line; discreet or disjunctive enough to allow for the
existence of disjointed or scattered sites of sovereignty. In this
way, parity of sover¬eign rights can be maintained as a basic
principle, but the correct mixture of dividing and sharing,
separating and integrating, will optimize the benefits accruing to
the two communities from the implementation of these rights.
It should be noted, in all events, that the nature of such a line
will be a function of the nature of the overall borderline between
Israel and Palestine, and conversely, for as long as two separate
polities continue to exist. Totally porous state-lines, on the
other hand, will render any special features in the Jerusalem line
redundant.
Forms of Cooperation
Translated into practical terms, Palestinian sovereignty over
eastern Jerusalem, or Israeli sovereignty over western Jerusalem,
can still be made to be consistent with a continuingly undivided
city, and with an extended and joint municipal government (or joint
function of two separate munici¬pal governments) which would
operate those sectors. The reference is to items like sewerage,
fire-fighting, street lighting, tourist aid and facilities,
forestation or public health. Their enjoyment and benefit by the
citizen is non-exclusive - indeed, benefit for one citizen is a
function of the benefit and enjoyment for others. Cultural,
political and religious-sensitive mat¬ters can be operated by
two separate municipal governments. Various forms of cooperation
can be envisaged, as well as various possibilities of
representation and sharing. The city can be the seat of two
capitals and sys¬tems of government, but it can have its own
single court of law supervised by a judiciary body whose members
are seconded respectively by the two states, and whose legal
framework, adapted appropriately from the two respective legal
systems, is adjusted to address the unique status and
deal¬ings of the city's Israeli and Palestinian
residents.
Also, speaking in practical terms such a formula would address and
rebalance some of the otherwise jarring anomalies, such as the
presence of a Jewish cemetery lying within Palestinian jurisdiction
on the eastern side and a Muslim cemetery lying within Israeli
jurisdiction on the western side; or of divided Abu Tor or Sur
Bahir; or of a jutting enclave deemed religiously essential to one
side or the other. Indeed, it is not logically, physically, or
politically impossible to design a formula that would address
"minimalist reasonable requirements" on both sides, and any such
formula, being an advanced form of this unique mixture of
separation and integration, may well serve as an attractive model
for the overall relation¬ship between the two states. In any
case, it would have to be remembered that the outlying metropolitan
borderline endowing the city with a special status will become
enhanced to the extent the separating line is made invis¬ible
and economically insignificant, while at the same time maintaining
a fairly visible and economically significant line between the two
states.
The Demographic Problem
A major problem which will have to be confronted in this effort is
demog¬raphy; and in particular, the Jewish settlers who have
come to reside across the Green Line and within the environs of
Jerusalem. I would like here to assert that I do not personally
feel comfortable with the notion of legitimizing Israel's de facto
transformation of the demographic status quo of the eastern part of
the city. Thus neither option - of incorporating such inhabitants
into Palestinian sovereign territory, or of annexing such quarters
to Israeli sovereign territory - seems to me to be readily
palatable.
Yet, I have already alluded to the possibility of at least some
adjust¬ments in borderlines, and it goes without saying that
the porosity of the border, allowing for the free movement of
capital, goods and personnel, will in any case make it possible for
residents, whatever their nationality, and wherever they reside, to
move freely. The basic ingredients for a com¬promise on this
issue, therefore, are obvious. However, it would have to be
addressed in the same spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit that
all other issues also have to be addressed. I am certain that
future negotiators will not be in want of possible suggestions in
this area.
Be that as it may - and it may be a long while before the two sides
final¬ly settle on the most suitable level of mixture and
separation - the other aspect to be addressed by both sides will
have to be Jerusalem's universal character. This can be maintained
through declaring the city a violence-free and demilitarized zone,
a sanctified area that provides free access to all pil¬grims
and visitors at all times. This means a city where properties and
wor¬shippers belonging to foreign churches enjoy total
religious immunity, where the rich mosaic of different religious
quarters is enhanced and sup¬ported, and where the
international community can through the United Nations continue to
have a unified symbolic presence and representation, possibly still
on Jabal al-Mukabber, an indication of the solicitude with which
peace in the city is to be guarded.
A distinguished international figure might be appointed an honorary
role as U.N. representative, with perhaps a special Jerusalem title
reflecting the recognition by the people of Jerusalem of their
city's international character. Beyond that, however, it is
difficult to see the value now of an internation¬alization
program of the kind envisaged in the 1947 U.N. partition
plan.
The Human Front
My final comment has to do with the immense compensating effort
which has to be undertaken by all concerned, once a settlement is
agreed upon, in order to bring the infrastructure of Palestinian
Jerusalem up to the standard enjoyed by Israeli Jerusalem. This
will involve a massive program of renovations in the Old City, in
the various neighboring Palestinian quarters, as well as
residen¬tial construction and development of the commercial
centers, all informed by environmentally-conscious plans. There is
a great need to create symmetry between the various neighborhoods
to facilitate human harmony in the city. In financial terms, the
reconstruction effort cannot be immense by any inter¬national
standard. But its human and political value will be
immeasurable.
Still on the human front, the time must also come and the effort
under¬taken to establish a multireligious higher institute for
the study of the region's civilizations, where scholars from
different national and religious backgrounds can not only work
jointly on the pluralistic history of Palestine and its
civilizations, its peoples and its archaeology; but where a true
effort can also be undertaken by these same scholars to engage in
an appreciation of the Abrahamic religion, the source of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.
Jerusalem's future peace can only be guaranteed if, additional to
any political or geographical settlement which is worked out, a
serious effort is made in the sphere of historical and religious
reconstruction. The fact that the three contending religions derive
their roots from the same divine mes¬sage is one which can
either help aggravate an already unhealthy state of dissonance and
friction, or be a source of convergence and harmony.
Given the unique way in which Jerusalem is regarded by followers of
these religions, both in terms of its role in the past as well as
in terms of its status in the future, it is particularly incumbent
on the contending parties to pursue a course of convergence and
harmonization. This will require a major reappraisal of existing
perceptions, and perhaps it calls for a joint reconstruction of the
significance of sites and events. After all, it is too iron¬ic
and sad that the message of a universal truth propagated by a
common father should stand in the way of consonance and convergence
among those who profess to be his descendants and followers.
I have, in the final analysis, only presented my personal
ruminations on the subject. I hold onto them for two complementary
reasons: (a) I believe that without them a Jerusalem settlement is
not possible; and (b) I believe that without a Jerusalem settlement
a lasting peace in the area is not possi¬ble. With them, both
a settlement and peace can be made possible.