President Obama and the US Democratic Convention took the unprecedented step of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This comes in the aftermath of the racist anti-Palestinian statements by the Republican candidate Mitt Romney during his last visit to Israel at the end of August. It seems that both candidates are trying to outdo each other to please the Netanyahu government, seeking in the process to win the Jewish vote in the upcoming presidential election in November. This irresponsible political manoeuvring is not only putting any peace perspectives between Palestinians and Israelis in jeopardy, but it is a blatant encouragement to the extremist and neo-colonialist policy of the Israeli authorities paving the way for more wars and more bloodshed in the region.
Declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel is an outright violation of international law. Once the capital of the world, in heaven and earth, a city of three faiths, a city that has endured countless sufferings and afflictions, today Jerusalem is the capital of two peoples, two nations at war; a war which has the world as its theatre. Yes, the city’s tumultuous history is marked by recurrent invasions: from the violent rule of the Crusaders who massacred its inhabitants, Muslims, Christians and Jews, and pillaged it, to the might of the Ottoman Empire, which though ruthless, ruled its inhabitants with a fair sense of justice between its inhabitants for centuries. Yet in spite of the conflicting millenary ambitions, it has acquired symbolic significance as having been throughout history a catalyst to peace, dialogue and coexistence in the region. This in fact, compelled the UN (in the 1949 Partition Plan for Palestine) to urge the nations of the world to recognize it as an international city, a corpus separatum, thus repealing David Ben Gurion’s unilateral decision in 1948 to consider the city as the “eternal capital” of the Jewish state.
Since then the issue of the partition of the city between both Palestinians and Israelis has remained at the heart of the conflict. The Palestinian Authority has consistently laid claim to East Jerusalem, while Israel has continuously infringed on this part of the city populated by Palestinians: Muslims and Christians who consider it as the capital of their future state, allowing settlers to usurp land and property without restraint.
Israel’s policy of occupation and settlement of Palestinian land since the June 1967 war leaves no room for a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government violates the basic human rights of Palestinians. The construction of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West bank are a flagrant violation of international law. Several of these settlements have reached city status with populations exceeding 30,000 people and form a strangling cordon around the Arab part of the Jerusalem. The United Nations has repeatedly declared them to be illegal, and in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Yet, despite the harsh and sometimes racist policies of the Israeli government encouraged in this by irresponsible American tactics, we continue to regard peace between the two people as inevitable. A mutual agreement has to be found on the occupied territories and in particular on Jerusalem. This can only be achieved if both parties sit down at the negotiating table and come to a solution with the help of a fair, unbiased, responsible and conscientious international task force. It is evident in this respect that any solution to the conflict will have to find an acceptable resolution to the Jerusalem issue. Without that, peace will not be durable. Jerusalem, the capital of two states living in peace side by side, remains at the heart of this conflict.
About the Author
Do you think that a duel occupancy and capital would be an accepted solution in an over arching two state solution to both the parties involved? Don’t worry I don’t expect to speak for all palestinians or israelis just would like your perspective as a palestinian american. The designation as capital would only be considered by internally to israel and palestine (as it is currently considered in israel).
My perspective is this: I think a duel occupancy capital should be the accepted solution for a two state solution. The trouble is getting both parties to the negotiating table once again. Benjamin Netanyahu is a hardliner who heads one of the most intransigent rightist governments in Israel’s history; he considers it his duty as a Jew to take over the whole of Jerusalem and keep it as the “eternal” capital of Israel. On the other hand, Mahmoud Abbas wants to go back to the negotiation table but before doing that he wants to make sure that Israel stops the colonization of occupied Palestinian territories; he must also have to get all Palestinian parties including Hamas accept the premises of eventual negotiations. To achieve such goals both Israelis and Palestinians must work together and prepare the ground scrupulously to make sure that the next round of negotiations does not fail again.
I am sorry to say, but there is a re-writing of legal history on this page that needs urgent correction.
The UN Partition Plan of November 1947,- IF (a BIG ‘if’) it had it been accepted by BOTH sides – then it would have had legal binding effect and would have created a new legal position with 2 states. The Jews accepted it. It is the tragedy of the Arabs of this region, that it was not accepted by them and that the Arabs went to war.
New rights were not created as the UNGA cannot make law and its resolutions are non-binding.Only the parties to the dispute can make the Agreements, Legal title under the San Remo Resolutions of 1920, the League of Nations Mandates of 1922 and Article 80 of the UN Charter iare the foundations of legal sovereign rights for the Jewish people.
THe PA have been well aware of this position in negotiations in the past and is acknowledged in the now moribund Oslo Agreements. Full status agreements have yet to be reached, and without pre-conditions .Not until the parties actually agree to change the legal status, can the legal position change.That is not to say that Palestinian Arabs do not have legal rights. They do, But not rights of Sovereignty. Jerusalem is therefore in Israel and in Israeli law is its capital
As for the US being equivocal in the recent past over Jerusalem, this is a direct breach of US law that the US enshrined in its costiution to agree to support for the rights of Jews to settle in Palestine (Anglo-American Convention 1924).
The state of Palestine is yet to happen, and to do so, the PA must relinquish its desire to take what it wrongfully perceives as its territory – the whole of Israel. And it can start with changing the racist language in its charters(Hamas and PLO) .. But will it do so, and will decent Palestinian Arabs have the ability to take control and vest the power in the people a, and not in the hands of potentates?
As for UN Resolutions (including Security Council Resolutions) are non-binding on the parties, and the ICJ ruling of 2004 is also non-binding as it iis an Advisory Opinion.Check the ICJ website.
The final point I make is this. Jerusalem is an important centre for the 3 monotheistic faiths, but for Jews it is central and it will always be. “East” Jerusalem means essentially the Old City., which has of course a Jewish Quarter.Until 1967 the Arabs under Jordan allowed no access to the City. In ancient times until the beginning of the 20th Century EAST Jerusalem WAS Jerusalem. West Jerusalem did not exist.
First of all, The Jews accepted the partition plan because it was much more favourable to them (33% of the population of Palestine) than to the Arabs, Muslims and Christians, who formed the majority. In fact the partition plan attributed to the Jews more land, the most arable land, than to the Arabs. The partition plan was built around the idea that Israel was to be the national home of the Jewish people without any recognition to the welfare of the Arabs. That is the reason the Arabs went to war.
For an agreement to go through, PM Netanyahu is the one who should let go of his hardliner attitude towards Jerusalem and declare that he would want to find a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of both states. You say that the Arabs do not have legal rights. This is outrageous and this is precisely why peace has not been possible between the two people. In fact it is essentially because of people with extremist Zionist attitudes like you. Before 1948 and the rise of Jewish terrorist organizations such as Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, Palestinian Arabs (the vast majority of the inhabitants of the city) were living alongside Jews in Jerusalem. Therefore your comment on Palestinian Arabs not having rights of sovereignty is nonsense. You should research facts before you post them. The state of Palestine is yet to be created and rest assured that Palestinians WILL NOT relinquish what is rightfully theirs. But unlike the Israeli government, they are willing to share the land of historic Palestine and achieve a durable solution where Palestinians and Israelis coexist in peace. You call the charters of Hamas and the PLO racist? What about this quote right from the Likud Party Platform presented at the 15th Knesset (1999): “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state West of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.”
Before speaking of decent Palestinians to take control, think of decent Israelis to take control. The whole problem lies with the Israelis. Remember the only Israeli PM (Yitzhak Rabin) to sign a peace treaty with Yasser Arafat, was not murdered by Palestinians, he was murdered by Israelis.
You call the Palestinian leadership potentates. Considering that both Former President Arafat and President Abbas were elected democratically, I don’t think you have any right to call them potentates. Furthermore, Hamas was also elected democratically, so calling them terrorists would be considered nonsense unless you would share with me the conviction that Israel also uses terrorist methods to illegally occupy Palestinian land and oppress the people.
To conclude, Jerusalem is not central only for Jews!! It is central for the three monotheistic faiths and must be shared between them so that peace can reign in the Holy land.
Nadim,
Firstly,the Partition Plan in 1947 was passed in the UNGA before the State of Israel was declared. You maintained it was passed in 1949! There was an Armistice Agreement in 1949 after Jordan gained control (illegally in a belligerent war) of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Jews were routed from these territories. The Armistice Agreements, which you can read online was never intended to be a new legal boundary nor were legal sovereign rights were created as Article 5(2) explicitly makes perfectly clear:
“2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.”
Back to 1947…
The Partition of Palestine was formulated on a geopolitical basis to reflect the facts on the ground at the time. predominantly Arab areas were to be allocated for Arabs and vice versa. It was not favourable to the Jews either,and accepting the terms was a sacrifice of land it was entitled to keep under the San Remo resolutions. The Arabs were in no compromising mood and war was inevitable. It was a a war intended on annihilation – a zero end game.There was already civil war by then – the British having reneged on its obligations under the Mandate by restricting Jewish immigration after 1939.
(I am somewhat puzzled by your reasoning, by the way. In your article you attach great importance to the UN when it comes to condemning Israel yet you excuse the belligerent act of war of the Arabs, because you accept a view that ” The partition plan was built around the idea that Israel was to be the national home of the Jewish people without any recognition to the welfare of the Arabs” which is not exactly correct.Yet it was a resolution nevertheless. Why attack it when you accept the others?)
I have read the 2 volume memoirs of King Abdallah of Jordan (Hussein’s Grandfather) who was consulted on the formulation of the plan. In the preface to “Al Takmilah” the late King Hussein gives a much more nuanced reason to why the Arabs rejected the plan. I quote without editing at page xiv:
“The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralysed them with FALSE [my emphasis] and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone;that eighty million Arabs and four hundred million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue. when the moment of destiny struck, the only assistance forthcoming was a few thousands soldiers from a few contiguous and neighbouring Arab countries, who were outmatched substantially by their adversaries. With hindsight, we can appreciate that many Arab leaders have since asked for , and accepted far less than what King Abdallah had then proposed.”
That the Arabs chose war instead of settlement was a mistake. Nor was it an easy victory as some suggest for the Jews, in that the Jews lost 1% of its population, 3 years after a war that already seen the decimation of its population decimated.
You have misunderstood what I said regarding Arab legal rights.I said: “That is not to say that Palestinian Arabs do not have legal rights. They do, But not rights of Sovereignty…”
Arab Legal Rights
The Balfour Declaration (which was not legally binding), but when imported into the Agreement at the Paris Conference and San Remo) became legally binding refers quite clearly:
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”
These rights were civil and religious rights, but not sovereign rights. To make it clearer. Arabs have rights over land it owns. It would be illegal to take those lands away if clear title is in the name of an Arab.
So no, I didn’t say in anything that I wrote: “the Arabs do not have legal rights. ”
As regards to Arabs with rights, clearly 20% of Israel, (Arabs) enjoy full civil rights. An attempt to address rights in the territories by passing jurisdiction to Arabs to deal with their own legal structures was agreed at Oslo with the intention that a final status settlement reached between the parties, once security issues were addressed, would also mean the creation of full sovereign rights being established. The chance for this happening was lost in 2000/2001 when Arafat unleashed the 2nd Intifada. Netanyahu was not in power then. An improved offer came back on the table when Olmert proposed yet further concessions. Abu Mazen chose to leave things “in the air”. Why?
You accuse me of being extremist? I am extremely open minded about the situation in the ME. Leaders on both sides have made terrible miscalculations. The Palestinians have been used as pawns to advance political objectives. Why on earth have the Arabs chosen to retain camps. In Lebanon, the Arabs have limited rights to work and own property. Similarly in Syria, they are not given citizenship? Egypt until recently had sealed its border with Gaza. Yet they all vote in the UN. What a farce! And today, the Syrian Government forces are killing Palestinians. Why? Where’s the UN?They murdered them in Kuwait. Where was the UN?
Yes I accept Abu Mazen was elected democratically, but his term ran out in 2009. No new elections in sight. Hamas was also elected, but if I remember correctly, Hamas got upset with the Fatah and threw them off buildings. Democracy in action?Is that what you really believe? Naming streets after bus bombers? A future Palestinian State will have no Jews? is this sane Nadim? is this what you want?
Yet Erekat’s nephew gets treated in the Hadassah Hospital. So does Haniyah’s family! As so do hundreds of thousands of Arabs get treated in Israel. There are plenty of moderate peace loving Israelis, many of whom would be willing to make the peace.Plenty of Arabs live well with Jews and long may it continue.
You have not dealt with the San Remo Resolutions,League of Nations resolutions in 1922, the UN Art 80 and the legal rights created thereunder. While there may be a political need to change the terms, the legal position, in the round remains unchanged.
Religion: Mecca became CENTRAL to Muslims. (Are you saying Jerusalem is more important? You’d be the first!) Rome became CENTRAL to Christians,. that’s why the Pope lives in the Vatican , and not in Jerusalem…
From the first day of exile to this day the Jews have always cried “Next year in Jerusalem!”
Thanks for replying and I pray for a durable peace.
I love your detailed analysis Joshua!….The Arabs have a blame for not intially a two state solution. I’m afraid the aftermath mess may not be cleaned up.its already forever indelible