Two Capitals in an Undivided Jerusalem

Adnan Abu-Odeh

From Foreign Affairs, Spring 1992

Article preview: first 500 of 1,866 words total.

Summary:  Proposes a new concept for the internationalization of Jerusalem -- to recognize Israeli and Arab sovereignty over the modern sectors, but to maintain the ancient Walled City free of any national control.

Adnan Abu Odeh is Chief of the Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan.

The long-awaited Middle East peace process has begun, and the parties, through direct negotiations, have started their pursuit of a settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question. In their letter of invitation the cosponsors, the United States and the Soviet Union, stated that they "are prepared to assist the parties to achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement, through direct negotiations ... based on U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338." The internationally accepted formula for the application of these two long-standing resolutions is "land for peace."

Between 1948, the year of Israel?s establishment, and the war of 1967, when the Israeli army occupied all of mandate Palestine and other Arab territories belonging to Egypt and Syria, the Arab?Israeli conflict was viewed as being composed of three major issues: mutual recognition of the parties involved; the status of Jerusalem; and the right of repatriation or compensation for Palestinian refugees. Bipolarization was at its peak, and unfortunately there were no serious international efforts at solving the conflict. It was hoped that after the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including the refugees, were addressed, the Arabs would recognize the Jewish state, and peace treaties would ultimately be signed. After the 1967 war the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 242 as the basis for solving the conflict: Israel would return land it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and recognition. However, with its own interpretation of resolution 242, which I regard as self?serving, Israel?s occupation was prolonged, its attitudes hardened and it introduced other factors that further complicated the conflict. Chief among these was the incessant practice of building Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, thus disrupting the cardinal formula of "land for peace" and intensifying the Palestinian national identity, which made the Palestinian people look for a solution beyond resolution 242.

What is now required is a genuine effort to avoid entanglement in details and discussion of peripheral issues. I propose that we proceed to the heart of the matter.

II

The future status of Jerusalem has long been regarded as the most intractable of issues in the Arab?Israeli conflict: it is controversial, emotional and intricate. The parties to the conflict have long agreed, at least tacitly, to defer settlement of Jerusalem to a later phase in the peace process. The Arabs hold that they have a right to reclaim their lands seized in the 1967 war, East Jerusalem as well as the surrounding West Bank. The government of Israel asserts its right to Greater Jerusalem undivided, including those new areas built out beyond the city center into the West Bank after the 1967 war. The world community never acquiesced in the division of the city in 1948 or its annexation by one side in 1967.

I would like to propose for consideration that the problem of Jerusalem be addressed now, and not deferred until later. I argue, contrary to the prevailing attitudes, that with the ongoing peace negotiations this is the most propitious time to ...

End of preview: first 500 of 1,866 words total.