Thank you for giving me the privilege of being one of the contributors to this symposium. I was not asked to prepare a paper but to be a discussant on papers presented at this forum. In response to Gershon Baskin's paper, I have to say two things. He heads the Israel Palestine Center for Research and Information, IPCRI, and works on various issues on the question of Jerusalem. We live in the same city and we work on the same subjects from different perspectives but we don't meet. It is ironic that I have to travel all the way from Jerusalem to Washington to meet the man and to discuss his paper at this forum. Maybe it is the fashion nowadays that we have to go to a third place in order to respond to each others positions and ideas.

Since the keynote speaker was Mrs. Holst, which reminds us of the Oslo chapter and the exchange of letters between the late Mr. Holst and Mr. Peres about Jerusalem, I think my starting point should be to place Oslo in the unfolding history of Palestine. The story goes back to the end of the first world war and the peace conference in Versailles in 1919. Two leaders met, Chaim Weizmann, representing the Jewish people and the Zionist movement and Prince Faisal representing the Arab people and the Arab Revolt. Their meeting took place with the assistance of a third party, Great Britain and Lawrence, who came to be known as Lawrence of Arabia. London was very much interested and involved in the region at that time and was competing with France. These two leaders reached an agreement based on regional economical cooperation as a starting point for regional security arrangements. Part of that 1919 agreement read: "We the Jewish people are asking you, the Arab people to give us part of the land of Palestine on which the Jewish people can have autonomy and establish a homeland". The basis of their understanding for co-existence was economic cooperation and it was said that in return the Jews would give the Arabs the world economic markets. Of course that agreement of 1919 never materialized, not necessarily because Washington was not involved or interested, nor because the balance of power between Great Britain and France would not allow it, but because the people concerned were not in agreement on geo-political and economical issues and the Arabs were seeking independence from the Turks and were struggling for unity and sovereignty. At the same time the Jews were not in agreement either, they were divided on the priorities of their political and demographic agenda. Today, we have witnessed a similar agreement but this time it was made in Oslo in the aftermath of the Gulf war and was concluded on the 13th of September, 1993 at the White House in Washington. This agreement does not differ much from the 1919 agreement. It is also based on regional economic cooperation, but this time we, the Palestinians, are asking the Israelis to return to us a part of our homeland, 22% - the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, on which to establish Palestinian autonomy towards Palestinian statehood. In return, we will give the Israelis the Arab economic markets. Immediately after the signing of the Declaration of Principles, DOP, at the White House ceremony, we saw Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres arriving undisguised in Morocco. Later on we saw Mr. Beilin signing an accord with the Vatican and later, an Israeli delegation negotiating in the multilateral talks on refugees in Tunis. It was obvious that Israel had gone into the Arab world across the Palestinian bridge but without anything changing on the ground. Israeli occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Jerusalem remained. The questions to be addressed today are about the future of the DOP, especially if Mr. Arafat is going to sink in the Gaza Sea or if Mr. Rabin is going to lose the coming election in 1996, leaving no Labor party in government to continue the implementation of the agreement. Now, I think the two peoples are still in the early stages of a peace process, we are still at the doorstep of recognition, acceptance and acknowledgment of each other. This does not mean that we have reached the stage of reconciliation. We are still enemies and we may continue to be enemies. The image sold by the media of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands at the White house as if the conflict was over, was very memorable, but is not the reality of the relationship. The problem is not solved. The starting point for a real solution is for people to see enough of a change on the ground to promote acceptance of the idea of sharing land and living as independent neighbors. Can we reach that stage? Most importantly, can that scenario be applied to the question of Jerusalem and this will lead me to my response to Mr. Baskin's talk. About the question of a Palestinian-Israeli divorce, or as Mr. Rabin refers to it - a separation. In both cases what is meant is ghettoization of Palestinian cities and towns, confiscating Palestinian land and annexing it to Israel. Mr. Baskin asked why the divorce? We have never been married and I was very polite to use the term divorce. It's true we have never been married. The truth is that we have been raped by the Israelis for the past 27 years. They confiscated our land. They demolished our houses. They deported our leaders. They killed our youth in cold blood. This is clearly rape and we have been crying for an end to it. You have to believe in the future you want to see and consider carefully our position - we are not talking about all of Palestine but about only 22% of it, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. We want to build a future for our children on these lands whose border lines are already obvious. We accepted, acknowledged and recognized Israel. We wanted to keep Israeli presence away from our homeland. We wanted them to stop raping us, but it seems that our cries fell on deaf ears. It became part of the Israeli system and even today in Israel there are two groups, the military, who are enjoying what they are doing to us, and the politicians along with the economists, who dream of different scenarios but are unable to implement their visions. According to Mr. Baskin's presentation, there is an Israeli consensus that Jerusalem is the capital of the state and their concern covers only the question of security and the holy places. He added that there are ideas about establishing neighborhood councils for both communities - Palestinians and Israelis. I say that the Palestinian position will see two capitals, two municipalities, two sovereignties and two peoples sharing the city. On security, we are still negotiating. It is of great concern to us too, but how can there be security in the Old City of Jerusalem when Mr. Ariel Sharon still occupies an Arab house in the middle of the city, guarded for 24 hours by soldiers who harass people and block the roads. How can you maintain security in the Old City when Palestinians are being evacuated from their houses, churches being closed down and people being deported from the Old City? What concept of security is that? Is it just an umbrella everybody raises in Israel, security for all? We would like to know, if they have a concept of security for Palestinians? On the question of the holy places and if they should remain under Israeli control, I would like to remind you of some ideas raised by speakers this morning. It was said that from 1948 to 1967, Israelis or Jews were denied the right to go to worship at the Western Wall. Those who study history carefully and dig through documents, Israeli scholars among them, wrote very clearly about the relationship between Palestinians and Israelis in the years 1948 to 1967. There were many talks and meetings between Israeli and Arab officials, especially on the East side of the river, in Jordan. An Israeli request to allow Jewish worshippers to go to the Western Wall was never submitted. The discussion, agreement and action during these years was about arrangements and passage for medical support to the Hebrew University Hospital on Mount Scopus which was under Jordanian jurisdiction. Again, in the case of the Western Wall, according to the British Mandate and British courts, it is the el-Burak wall and an Islamic property. It is where the prophet Mohammed left his horse (Burak) and ascended to heaven in the 7th century. It was in the aftermath of the Arab revolt in 1936 that the British courts in Palestine confirmed that the wall was an Islamic property. Muslims never prohibited access to any holy places for either the inhabitants of the city, pilgrims or tourists. In 1967, the first thing the Israeli occupiers did was to demolish over 350 Palestinian houses in the Maghrebi quarter in order to build the plaza in front of the Western Wall. It was under the Arab-Islamic rule of the city that its heritage, history, and culture were preserved and the case of holding the keys to the Holy Sepulchre is an example. It had been agreed by all Christian churches that the keys be kept with a Jerusalemite Islamic family and it was only after the Israeli occupation that the Holy Sepulchre was robbed by two Israelis. An understanding on holy sites and their security cannot be reached if the concept of their maintenance is an entirely Israeli one. The city has been governed and controlled by Arab, Islamic, Christian heritage and politics for 1,400 years. Why accept the dictates of only 27 years of Israeli occupation and concede to them? Is it reasonable or logical to give up 1,400 years of history and culture for 27 years of occupation? A third point concerns the idea of an open city and raises the question of exactly what city we are talking about. A Jordanian scholar published an article in Foreign Affairs in 1992, suggesting that the walled city should be kept apart from the arena of conflict and each party would be responsible for its own respective part. The West part of Jerusalem would be for the Israelis and the East part for the Palestinians. Palestinians are speaking about one open city. They own 26% of West Jerusalem property and they have their presence in East Jerusalem with 150,000 inhabitants and over 200 institutions. The concept of an open city, should cover all parts of the city in spite of the evolution of the municipality borders from 1949 to 1967 to 1982 to the 90s. It is one city without walls or barriers and access from the Occupied Territories is, or should be free. In fact, East Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Territories but the future of the whole city has been left open since the partition plan of 1947. If you come to Jerusalem today and you see the state of siege under which people are living, you will not believe it. You will not believe that this is an open city, or even that the Israelis are thinking of an open city. Item four concerns the issue that Jewish neighborhoods in the Arab sector of East Jerusalem should remain under Jewish sovereignty or Israeli sovereignty. If I claim my right to my neighborhood in West Jerusalem, I would demand that neighborhood be under Palestinian sovereignty if we are sharing the city. This is equal treatment. What I allow you in my part of the city, you should also allow me in your part. This takes us back to the question of partition which raises various issues of citizenship and residency. If you, as an Israeli would like to live in the Arab part of the city, you become a resident, but you are not a citizen of that area. Exactly like me going to Nazareth - I'm a citizen of Palestine, and I can become a resident of Israel. I'm not an Israeli citizen, nor am I interested in becoming one. It's my right to retain my citizenship as a Palestinian, but I can be a resident of other countries. Residency is for all, if people will abide by the rules and the law of the respective countries. Citizenship raises the issue of sovereignty, authority and jurisdiction. Why should discussion head in that complex direction? The concept of sovereignty differs from nation to nation and for the time being there is no consensus on it. On the idea of establishing a charter and special court for Jerusalem, I think many other problematic issues will follow, such as who decides on citizenship and residency rights? Who will decide which courts are appropriate for which people? I think it is a long way before Palestinians and Israelis can reach a common agenda for such a charter. However, if you want to think and plan a political, social, cultural and demographic charter for Jerusalem, your starting point must be a shared city and not a closed Jewish capital. Palestinians are receptive to ideas which could lead to solutions of the problems. The current and immediate problem is that in 1967, East Jerusalem was occupied by the Israelis. Jerusalem is an integral part of the West Bank and anything that applies to the other occupied areas should also apply in Jerusalem. If the discussion is to cover the whole city of Jerusalem - East and West - the fact before us today, is that of 21 parts of the city, Israel controls 19 and the Palestinians only 2. Can we talk about Israeli willingness to share the 21 parts equally between the two peoples or does Israel wish to share only the two parts over which Palestinians have control. Jerusalem is the center of the Occupied Territories. Those who are living in the Territories cannot maintain their geo-political or socio-economic relations without being involved with Jerusalem. You cannot travel from Nablus to Hebron or many other places within the West Bank, without going through Jerusalem. Jerusalem maintains the geographical integrity of the Occupied Territories. It has been the real de facto capital of Palestine and its people cannot be separated from it. Jerusalem cannot be divided into different dimensions which are then to be tackled separately. It is wrong to claim that the religious dimension is separate from the political, or the economical separate from the historical, the national, the cultural or even the municipal. It is all one integral whole. The Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Peres is talking about three dimensions for Jerusalem - religious, political and civilian. The latter covers the municipal arrangement. From his perspective the political means that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel. The religious dimension, however, is open for other partners to struggle over. The Washington Declaration opened the door for Jordanian custodianship of the Muslim holy sites at the same time provoking the Palestinians and inviting Muslim and Christian partners to question their future relationship to the city. This is what the Israeli agenda stands for. What is needed now is for Palestinians to activate, to mobilize and to unite in Jerusalem. There are 150,000 Palestinians, they have over 200 institutions and need a national political address in Jerusalem to speak for them. It might become the Orient House, headed by Faisal Husseini, or perhaps a national Islamic-Christian address elsewhere in the city. To return to the DOP, some Palestinians interpret it as the Disaster Of Palestine. To avoid such a disaster, Palestinians everywhere are calling for elections in order to elect a legislative national body to govern throughout the transitional phase. The current Palestinian Authority, PA, is to become the Palestinian National Authority, PNA. With that legitimacy. Palestinians can start negotiating with Israel on the final arrangement and avoid a disaster especially on the issues of security, Jerusalem and refugees. What is Israel offering to Palestinians in Jerusalem today? According to the DOP, Palestinians have the right to elect and to nominate candidates for the elected body to govern the transitional phase, but Israel does not come up with clear answers. This element means that those who were negotiating in Oslo, recognize the linkage between Jerusalem and the rest of the OPT. They agreed in Oslo that is part of the Occupied Territories and Jerusalemites should be part of activities in the rest of the OPT. To demonstrate the linkage between Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Territories, there is an example in the case of the Augusta Victoria hospital in Jerusalem which Palestinians have been running for years with no Israeli interference. However, a new Israeli regulation was recently passed requiring special permission to be obtained for Palestinians in the West Bank. Firstly, special permission to allow them to enter Jerusalem if they live in the West Bank and secondly, stipulating that all employees must register with the Israel authority. So one who has been the director, or a physician of the hospital for years can suddenly lose his or her right to run it or work there. Special permission is needed and if this is not granted then Israel can close a department or even the whole hospital. These new regulations force either Israelization of Palestinian institutions or closure. If the state of siege will continue in Jerusalem and Israel will enforce its Israelization policy it is inviting people to confrontation. Jerusalem is question of life and death for Palestinians. It's worthwhile mentioning that the question of a polarized and occupied city should be examined carefully and as soon as possible and not postponed. Maybe what is need is third party mediation to start dialogue on a better future for the city. Let us invite religious people from the three monotheistic faiths Islam, Christianity and Judaism and their respective institutions, for dialogue on an open and free city. Let us discuss ways and means to work together and share responsibilities and visions of the city's future. At the same time there is a need for political negotiation between Palestinians and the Israeli occupiers, after all it remains an occupied city and the Israelis have committed themselves to negotiating on the final status of the city not exceeding two years of the transitional phase.