JERUSALEM Meetings 2000

10 July 2000
The Question Of Jerusalem

Palestinian Views on Jerusalem

Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi

The issue of Jerusalem is singular and indivisible. It is an issue, however, made up of numerous inextricably interwoven components. Any attempt to treat in isolation any one such component is to deny the reality of this interplay of elements, while to treat the whole issue without paying attention to each component is to likewise turn from the reality of the issue.

Myy presentation is an assessment of each of these contributive components and attempt to define their place within the larger issue both historically and in terms of today's reality.

To address the inseparable elements I begin by outlining the historical and social aspects of the city and its inhabitants before presenting an analysis of the relationships which the three monotheistic faiths celebrate with the city in terms of its history, perceived future and present circumstance. I will then proceed to the contemporary with a discussion of the issues of external political intervention, the position of international law and the international political community as regards the city and the territorial, geographic elements which have governed and in turn been governed by these positions over the course of history. The final part of this paper will discuss the notion of sovereignty in, both theoretically and in terms of the future Palestinian state, before describing the fears which many Jerusalemites harbor concerning their future and that of their home.

While the order in which I have chosen to approach these components may not at first seem entirely logical, it should be borne in mind throughout, that these are neither singular nor delimited issues in themselves but rather exist within a single and complete issue which must be treated wholly. For this reason I have tried to present the components below in such a way as to not only clarify their nature, but also to illustrate their interrelation.  

As the new millennium dawns upon Jerusalem, the land and the people of central Palestine remain as a pulse within the minds and souls of Palestinians and Arabs, Muslims and Christians wherever they may be. To her people Jerusalem represents a powerful, living lesson; a source of pride, an escape from the misfortunes of time, an embodiment of the realities of everyday life, the point of reference upon which the legitimacy of their rights is based, as well as the basis of both the Palestinian Identity and that of the larger Arab people. The following ten points briefly summarize the city's historical journey through these minds and souls.

1. In the 7^th century AD, Caliph Omar Ibn Al Khattab entered Jerusalem and, surrendering to its holiness, legislated with Bishop Safronius a rule concerning the protection of the city's citizens known as the 'Pact of Omar'.
2. On October 2, 1187, while the Crusader campaigns were battling for control over the city Salah Eddin Al Ayyobi, through a display of strength and simultaneous negotiations with the Frankish Kings victoriously entered Jerusalem, returning it to Arab rule.
3. The year 1897 marked the advent of the Zionist project in Basal Switzerland; an event followed in 1904 by the creation of the first Zionist 'mission', headed by Theodor Hertzel. Aware of the hazards of the Zionist movement and the maneuverings of its leaders, the Arabs called upon the Ottoman ruler to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine and to protect Jerusalem from the Zionist plans.
4. In October 1917, in the midst of World War I General Edmond Allenby entered Jerusalem, declaring the conclusion of the ‘Frankish’ mission, ie; the "Crusader Wars" and the establishment of the British Mandate, centered in Jerusalem.
5. The first British military governor of Jerusalem, Ronald Stors, left his mark upon the city by passing legislation that provided for the maintenance and preservation of the numerous Holy sites. He further prohibited the erection of buildings of more than three stories, thereby preserving the physical face of the city.
6. The Palestinian Nakba of 1948 and the devastating birth of Israel as “The State of the Jews” was in direct contravention of United Nations Resolution 181 (Nov. 29^th 1947), which called for the establishment of two states; one Jewish and one Arab, and gave Jerusalem the special status of "Corpus Seperatum" with international supervision over the city. The Arabs and the Palestinians (with the exception of Jordan) had rejected the UN resolution of 1947 calling for partition and the internationalization of Jerusalem.
7. Meetings between Abdullah Al Tal, the Jordanian military governor of Jerusalem from 1948 to 1949, and the Israeli military governor Moshe Dayan led to the division of the city. East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem were to be separated by a "no man's land" under the supervision of international troops. Though neither party legally recognized the division of the city or the legitimacy of the other's control over any part of it, they drew the lines of 'de facto' partition, waiting for a 'solution' to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and particularly the question of Jerusalem.
8. Following the war of 1967 Israel proceeded to administer militarily over the occupied territories of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, despite international demands that Israel be made to comply with UN Security Council resolution 242, issued that same year. Instead of that, Israel began taking measures to annex and 'Judaize' East Jerusalem , creating new ‘facts’ on the ground.
9. The Intifada, the Palestinian popular uprising that began in 1987, defied Israeli attempts to unify the city under their control and represented the resurgence of Palestinian political, social and cultural identity as an entity opposed to and removed from the Israeli administration. The Palestinians proved themselves capable of challenging the bullets and the oppressive collective punishments of detainment and closure. The stones of the Intifada redrew the green line as the borderline between East and West Jerusalem and between Palestinians and Israelis throughout the occupied territories.
10. The Madrid, Washington and Moscow negotiations of the early ‘90’s, followed by the secret negotiations in Oslo, produced the Declaration of Principles (DoP), based on the formula of 'trading land for peace' alongside the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 242. Bth parties agreed to exclude and postpone Jerusalem from the transition phase negotiations and to delay the issue as one of the major elements to be negotiated in the final status talks, to take place at least three years into the proposed five year transitional period.

This, briefly, is the historical background that underscores the political dimension when Palestinians and Arabs discuss the question of Jerusalem. These events, their memories and their symbols are difficult to ignore and, therefore, discussing them within the context of such a political dimension provides a greater opportunity to comprehend the painfulness of the present situation. The aim of reaching such comprehension should not be to facilitate acceptance of or surrender to the situation, but rather to motivate the public and the decision-makers to take into consideration the importance of this historical heritage in the final status negotiations regarding Jerusalem.

The City

Jerusalem represents a unique existence. Many of those cultural and daily aspects of life in Jerusalem, which contribute toward this existence, are bound up with the inseparable components of the question at hand. Therefore this existence, like the issue of its city has many characteristics that cannot be separated or ignored, including the following:

1. Jerusalem is a historical city, embodying heritage, culture, constructions and monuments that require maintenance and protection. International laws and resolutions call for its preservation; for instance, UNESCO lists Jerusalem among those historical cities whose structures ought not to be altered. The history of Jerusalem has become a part of the Palestinian and Arab emotional psyche.
2. Jerusalem is a sacred c, lying at the core of relbelief and faith, home to prophets and the centers of worship. Due to its holiness Jerusalem is charged with preserving the right and the responsibility of its people to practice their religious beliefs freely, without intervention or constraints that hinder their access to holy places, and without having to obtain permits.
3. Jerusalem is a political city, and as such is connected to the issue of Palestinian sovereignty, to the people and to their right to define themselves as part of the Palestinian body, participating in governmental, social and political security as well as diplomatic relationships. Palestinians believe that Jerusalem is the capital of their future state.
4. Jerusalem is a central city; it is the largest in Palestine and is the hub around which the most active and influential events in social and cultural Palestinian life revolve. Palestinian national, educational, medical, cultural, professional, commercial information, tourist, and diplomatic organizations are all centered in Jerusalem.
5. Jerusalem is a border city, distinct from neighboring political entities and lies on the north-south axis of the West Bank in the geographical center of Palestine. Its planned borders have varied over the years, but because of this geographical centrality the continuity of the cities and villages of Palestine cannot be maintained without Jerusalem. For example, a Palestinian from Hebron cannot reach Nablus without passing through Jerusalem, nor can another living in Ramallah reach Bethlehem without passing through the city.

Jerusalem enjoys a unique religious status that distinguishes it from any other city in the world. This religious aspect has created claims of ownership or posession, interests and relationships for the followers of the three monotheistic faiths in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the world.

A)-Islam

Muslims call Jerusalem 'Bayt Al-Maqdes', which means the Holy House, and it is mentioned in both the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Al-Quds [the Arabic name for Jerusalem}in Islam refers to everything sacred and related to God. The Qur'an acknowledges and respects Christianity and Judaism, and considers the Torah, the Bible and the Qur'an to all be the words of God.

Jerusalem is one of the major cities that helped the Arabs shape their monotheistic religious identity. It also symbols the connection between Islam and the Jewish and Christian religions.

As for the holy sites, the Qur'an marks Al-Aqsa Mosque (Al-Haram Ash-Sharif) as the third most holy place in Islam after Mecca and Medina. Jerusalem was the original Qiblah [direction of Muslim prayer] for prayer during the first sixteen months of Islam, and the Prophet Muhammad reminded the believers of its holiness when he associated it with Mecca and Medina in his “Hadith”.

Jerusalem is considered to be a symbol of prophecy, beginning in the days of Abraham. Furthermore, the nocturnal journey of the prophet Muhammad (Al-Isra' w Al Mi'raj) in which he traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem (Al-Aqsa mosque) and from their ascended spiritually to receive revelations, endowed the city with enormous significance to the faithful.

B)-Christianity

In the Christian Perspective, Jerusalem is the mother of all churches because it is the city where Jesus experienced the most pivotal events of his life. The Holy Sepulchre church marks the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and Jerusalem is the capital of the Christian faith. The Easter week is one of Jerusalem's main yearly events, in which Christians participate in marches and walks inside the wall of the Old City. Easter week begins with Palm Sunday and, after the mass olive branches are distributed as a symbol of peace. In the afternoon Christians take part in the traditional yearly procession. On Good Friday, Christians from Jerusalem as well as thousands of pilgrims from all over the world express their mourning and grief as they walk along the Via Dolorosa. On the following day a celebration called the Saturday of Holy Fire takes place in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and commemorates the resurrection of Christ.

Jerusalem symbolizes the church as it symbolizes the human soul, for it is the place of worship. A holy place is the place where God is worshipped by the soul, and there is no place in Jerusalem that is not considered holy for both Muslims and Christians. There are 199 Islamic centres and approximately 95 churches and monasteries in the city, in addition to 15 synagogues.

C)-Judaism

Many Israelis consider Jerusalem to be the symbol of their transformation from an existence as a people to that of a nation, following the formation of a state when King David occupied the city. Jews started to practice their prayers in the Temple that was founded by King Solomon on Mount Moria, which according to Jewish tradition is the place where God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son (Ishmael according to Islamic interpretation and Isaac according to Jewish interpretation).

There is also a bond between Jerusalem and Mount Zion in the religious conscious of all Orthodox Jews, for the prophets warned that God would stop protecting the city and its people if they proved to be unfaithful. Following Babylon's attack on the city the Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE and the Jews were scattered, though they continued to long for the re-building of the Temple and the return of Jewish control over the city.

There are three schools of thought regarding the ‘Question of the Temple’ in Jerusalem

1. The followers of this first school believe that the third Temple will descend from heaven, and that no power or force on earth will be able to demolish it. They believe that that area which they call the ‘Temple Mount’ (which is the ‘Harem Ash-Sharif compound today) is so sacred that no Jew should enter the area. They call for the maintenance of the present status quo and do not wish to interfere in any way with the Muslim practices and religious duties, waiting instead for the third Temple to descend from heaven.
2. The second school believes that man should re-build the temple upon the Temple Mount (Al-Haram Ash-Sharif Compound), but respects the presence of others there. They do not wish to return to the holy site without an agreement on ways to share the place. The leaders of this school encourage religious dialogue, especially between Jews and Muslims, in order to reach an understanding on sharing the holy site. The immediate Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian response has been that sole Muslim custody of Al-Haram Ash-Sharif is a red line that cannot be crossed. There can be no dialogue or negotiation in matters concerning religious belief and the holy places associated with such beliefs, and that there is no way to trust or accept the Jewish claims. Reinforcing this forceful rejection is the bitter experience of the March 1994 Al-Ibrahimi Mosque massacre in Hebron, when Jewish extremist Baruch Goldstein entered the Hebron Mosque and massacred dozens of Muslims bent in prayer. The Israeli occupying forces 'resolved' the matter by awarding the Jews control over the mosque.
3. The leaders of the third school try every year on the 9^th day of the Hebrew month of ‘Av’ (the date of the temple's destruction) to break into Al-Haram Ash-Sharif Compound, and do not disguise their intention to seize control over the site by “blood and fire”. The Palestinians are always ready to defend their holy places. It has been the clear and declared intention of this group to initiate a violent conflict in the city.

The issue of protecting holy places and maintaining the status quo while preserving the rights and interests of religious peoples to exercise their freedom of belief is the initial step towards cultural dialogue. This standpoint has always been the Palestinian position. Hopefully, such dialogue would formulate a program to protect the various interests and introduce a climate of justice, peaceful coexistence and stability. During the last 33 years of Israeli occupation in East Jerusalem there has never been a declared Israeli agenda regarding the appropriation of non-Jewish religious sites. This makes recentIsraeli remarks and maneuverings concerning Muslholy places all the more disturbing, as it signals a declared political intention to shift the debate out of the realm of law, history and territory and into the emotive, volatile and ‘gray’ area of fundamentalist religion.

The interests in and concerns about Jerusalem are not limited to the two parties involved in the conflict. Regional and international parties continuously announce their interest in and afiliations regarding the issue of Jerusalem, and demand that their interests in the holy city be acknowledged and protected.

The Catholic Church, represented by the Pope in the Vatican, signed a protocol with the Israeli government on Dec 30^th 1993. The protocol obliges the two parties involved to uphold this principle of mutual respect, stating that Catholic holy places should enjoy an autonomous status. The two parties established full diplomatic relations.

Based upon this agreement and the questions it raises, a PLO delegation negotiated with the Vatican and, in 1994, formulated an agreement that organizes the nature of relations between the two parties. This agreement explicitly details the political, religious and civil aspects of relations between the Vatican and the Palestinians, as well as the position of the Catholic church regarding the question of Jerusalem and the holy places, the final status agreement and the development of Islamic -Christian ties in Jerusalem and throughout the Holy Land. The agreement was signed on the 15^th of February 2000.

In 1994, Jordan and Israel signed an accord in Washington that included articles of the peace agreement between the two states. This accord calls for Israeli respect the acknowledgment by Israel, of the role of Jordan as the custodial authority over Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. Furthermore, it promises that when the final negotiations start, Israel will give special consideration to Jordan’s role in this.

International Law

No legitimate indication in International law allows Israel to impose its authority over Jerusalem. Israel imposed its military control over the West Jerusalem during the war of 1948, but no government or official entity accepted Israel's claimed sovereignty. The position(s) adopted by external national and international parties and organizations have, as noted, never been upheld and continue to be belligerently disregarded by the Israeli authorities. However, as regards the issue of Jerusalem, the legal accords and resolutions of the past fifty years remain as the clearly defined reference points upon which any and all negotiations must be founded.

The Israeli-Jordanian truce agreement clearly states that it should have no effect on the claims and demands of each party in the final settlement of the Palestinian case, since this agreement is only governed by military concerns. This was based on the Lahai agreement of 1907, which forbade the confiscation of public property in the occupied territories (Article 55) and stated that it should be treated as private property (Article 56). It was also based upon the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that prohibited an occupying force from transferring any part of its people to militarily occupied land.

East Jerusalem was occupied by Israeli forces in 1967 and as such is part of the occupied West Bank, subject to the aforementioned rule regarding lands occupied by force. The International position achieved a resounding consensus in demanding that Israel withdraw from the occupied lands (Security Council resolution 242 of 1967), and that it cease all measures and practices aimed at altering the landmarks of the city (resolution 252 of 1968). They further urged the Jewish State to respect the Geneva agreement concerning the duties of a military occupying force (Security Council resolution 271 of 1969).

Security Council resolution 478 of August 20^th 1980 further rejected Israel's imposition of its basic rules on East Jerusalem and reiterated its continuous requests to the occupying state to respect and abide by the Geneva agreements.

The international position rejected and continues to reject Israel’s claimed sovereignty over East or West Jerusalem, but all the relevant resolutions continue to be suspended without execution. This does not, however, imply that they no longer exist or that they should not be referred to as the legal basis through reference to which the Palestinians have continuously maintained that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian State.

One of the most significant European positions is the 1980 Venice declaration of the European Union, which announced the rejection of any initiative by one party to change the landmarks of Jerusalem. This declaration further states that any agreement concerning the city should include the freedom of access to all holy sites, taking into consideration the special status of Jerusalem to all parties involved.

Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, in his 1978 letter to the American president Jimmy Carter during the Camp David negotiations enunciated the Arab position regarding the city:

“Arab Jerusalem is an indivisible part of the West Bank, and the legal and historical Arab rights in the city should be respected and returned. Arab Jerusalem and the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem should be under Arab sovereignty. The Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem should practice their national and legitimate rights as part of the Palestinian people in the West Bank. All Security Council resolutions related to the subject should be enforced, particularly resolutions 242 and 267. All decisions and measurements made by Israel to change the status of the city are considered invalid and illegitimate”.

The Arab summit in Fez of 1982 produced the Amir (King) Fahed document, which demanded that Israel withdraw from the land that it occupied in 1967, including Arab Jerusalem. It also stated that the Palestinian State should be declared with Jerusalem as its capital, and that freedom of access to holy places should be maintained for all religious groups.

Furthermore, West Jerusalem, which fell under Israeli control in 1948, is still subject to international law and UN resolutions 181 and 194, which describe the Arab right of return and the right to compensation for property seized.

After the mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO in 1993 and the endorsement of the Declaration of Principles (DoP) aimed at ending the conflict and outlining a time frame of negotiations, Jerusalem was postponed for discussion in the final status negotiations. Many international and European parties have declared that the future of Jerusalem shall be decided by an agreement between the two parties. The frame of transitional-stage negotiations should not limit the issue of Jerusalem, for it was made with the understanding that Jerusalem is one of the basic issues that should be left to the final status negotiations. Jerusalem is still subject to International Law, and has been since 1947.

Historical changes in the territorial definition of the city have rendered an understanding as to which ‘Jerusalem’ is to be discussed of paramount importance. British Mandate Jerusalem, composed of the Old City as well as both East and West, can only be addressed according to 1947 UN resolution 181. The Jerusalem of 1947-1967, with its differently defined boundaries, falls under UN resolution 242 of 1967. If the Jerusalem that has existed since 1967 is to be considered then an East Jerusalem illegally and unacceptably expanded by Israeli annexation, settlement and confiscation in direct contravention of international law and in violation of all UN resolutions must be addressed. Here too, the enlarged 71km East Jerusalem, being 1/5 of the entire West Bank falls under resolution 242.

The total area of Jerusalem in 1947 was 59.5 km2. The area of West Jerusalem was 53 km2, while East Jerusalem comprised 6.5 km2, including the 1 km of the Old City. The borders of the city were marked by Abu Dis village in the east, Ein Karem neighborhood in the west, Shu'fat in the north and the city of Bethlehem in the south.

All the lands othe villages surrounding the municipal boundaries were part of the social and economical atmosphere of the city, but not part of the geographical borders. The West Jerusalem neighborhoods included Deir Yasin, Lifta, Ein Karem, Malha, Romema, Sheikh Bader, and Khallet Al Tarha, while East Jerusalem’s neighborhoods were Shu'fat and Beit Hanina.

As a consequence of the first Arab Israeli war and the Nakba of 1948, the cease-fire lines separated East and West Jerusalem with a No Man's Land under the supervision of the United Nations and the Emergency International Troops. The Arab (Jordanian) government agreed that once every two weeks a convoy would be permitted to pass through the East Jerusalem to supply the Hebrew University with its basic needs of equipment and Management personnel.

After 1967 the Israeli forces occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the Israeli government announced the confiscation of those areas. They further announced the annexation of lands adjacent to the boundaries of East Jerusalem, unilaterally expanded the municipal borders and imposed Israeli law throughout the area.

The Israeli government made the following six seizures of land:

June 1967 - 120 dunums within the walls of the Old City (the Jewish Quarter);

January 1968 - 4000 dunums in Sheikh Jarrah, Shu'fat, Lifta and Isawiyyeh;

January 1970 - 14000 dunums in Malha, Sour Baher, Beit Jala, Lifta and Shu'fat;

1980 - 4500 dunums in Beit Hanina and Hizma;

1991 - 2000 dunums in Im Touba, Sour Baher, Beit Safafa, Bethlehem and Beit Jala;

1996 - 6000 dunums in South Jerusalem, Abu Ghnein, Bethlehem and Beit Jala.

The total amount comes to 30,000 dunums, representing 34.5% of greater East Jerusalem.

Despite the fact that the area of East Jerusalem was expanded to include 71 km2, the Israelis further limited Arab options on their own land by designating it in the following way:

34% Confiscated land

40% Green Areas

7% Unused land

6% Infrastructure and streets

3% Frozen lands

90% of the total lands of East Jerusalem are, therefore restricted under Israeli law, and only 10% remain for Arab use (9,400 dunums).

With regard to demography, the 1967 population of Jerusalem included 195,000 inhabitants in West Jerusalem and 75,000 in East Jerusalem. Ever since, the Israeli government has aimed at maintaining this ratio of 72% Jews to 28% Palestinians. The Jewish population grew to 330,000 in West Jerusalem with an additional 160,000 settlers in 28 illegal settlements in East Jerusalem, bringing the total to 490,000 Jews. At the same time, 210,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem with an additional 50,000 Jerusalemites residing outside the current Israeli municipal borders, yielding a total of 260,000 Palestinian Jerusalemites. Therefore the ratio of Israelis to Palestinians has decreased to 67% and 33% respectively.

Furthermore, 80,000 Palestinians were forced to leave West Jerusalem in 1948. The property ceased by Israel comprised 40% individual Palestinian property, 34% Islamic Waqf property, Christian churches and government buildings, and 26% Jewish property. Israeli policy has since 1948 prohibited any Palestinian from residing in West Jerusalem.

Sovereignty is one of the central issues that will continue to haunt Jerusalem. Prior to assessing the issue of sovereignty in Jerusalem over the last five decades, it will be useful to review some of the various definitions of sovereignty as mentioned in theory, as well as the position of International law and experiences from reality.

The first definition of sovereignty is the divine power represented by God, and some people still believe that sovereignty in Jerusalem belongs to God. The second definition holds that sovereignty is part of the role of the king, and the source of his authority and power is his claim to represent God's will on earth. The third definition of sovereignty evolved with the transfer of power from the king to the public, and defines a system under which the people practice sovereignty through their elected government. The inseparable bond between the concept of sovereignty, its practice and the right of self-determination evolved at this stage. Self-determination is the basis of all rights and equality, and the practice of these rights includes freedom, human dignity and the right to defend oneself.

In the view of international relations, sovereignty remains the burden that governs the nature of relationships between countries. Sovereignty in international affairs means that the state is capable of providing for itself, and also that the state can limit its capabilities and responsibilities when it decides. With the founding of the League of Nations, followed by the United Nations and various international organizations, the concept of sovereignty became ingrained in international affairs and international law, which have since governed and organized relationships among sovereign countries.

In practice, attempts to establish sovereignty failed in both Danzig Germany and Tresty Italy. The city of Tanja succeeded in achieving partial economic self-determination between 1923-1956, after which sovereignty returned to Morocco.

In Jerusalem, no party has ever attempted to implement the system of international supervision "Corpus Seperatum" as demanded by the 1947 UN resolution 181. Furthermore, the UN failed in 1950 to impose the external custodial council to run the city independent of the two states. Instead, the Palestinian - Israeli conflict continues.

Sovereignty may take any of the following forms:

1. Exclusive Sovereignty implies that one state enjoys absolute sovereignty by imposing its political and civil regulations over the land and the people.
2. International Sovereignty can be achieved if the state, as represented by the government, and the people together delegate sovereignty to an international committee. The international committee, represented by a 'custody council' or 'special committee', will then exercise political and civil control over the land and its people.
3. Shared Sovereignty involves a situation in which two states share in the process of exercising their political and civil authority over the city by managing geographical sectors and neighborhoods divided between them, with the possibility of joint management of specific neighborhoods.
4. Functional Sovereignty is achieved when two states concede some of their claims and demands to the other without relinquishing the claim to sovereignty. After such unofficial distribution they agree on a package of functional and vital services for the city such as water, electricity, transportation, education, health, taxes, tourism, economy, planning and organization. They then agree to divide this package into two parts, the first of which includes central services, which they jointly control, and the second those services that each party implements independently.
5. Joint Sovereignty over one city is achieved when the two parties involved reach an agreement that establishes a system for joint management of the city through cooperative organizations based on the just and equal representation of all the city’s inhabitants.

The need for sovereignty does not stem from a need to control the life or the future of the people, but rather that of providing for the civil and cultural evolution of the society to ensure justice, equality and freedom of the people in a legal and societal frame.

The exclusive sovereignty of the Israel over Jerusalem is not logical nor reasonable, or practical and is rejected by the majority of the world’s governments. It is not acceptable to the Palestinians, and does not aid the process of resolving the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. The Palestinians do not claim or seek exclusive sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, because such a maximalist approach does not indicate a will to find a means of co-existence between the two parties. Israel's claim that Jerusalem is the eternal undivided capital of Israel not only disrespects the rights of other parties, but is also a violation ofUN security council resolutions and other international and regional resolutions since the beginning of thePalestinian - Israeli conflict.

Internationalization of sovereignty over Jerusalem has failed. From the very beginning the two parties involved rejected the idea of internationalization, for each harbors a basic need to declare the city as the capital of its state and its people.

Functional and joint sovereignty can be combined within the framework of shared sovereignty, where both the Israelis and the Palestinians agree to a bilateral and separate sovereignty over the city by declaring it the capital of both states. This arrangement necessitates that both have the ability to exercise their national, political, legal and civil powers over a collection of parts and neighborhoods in the city with the acceptance of two major points:

1. Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem need to rectify the damages and amend the mistakes of previous Israeli practices.
2. The 'map of Jerusalem' must be redrawn in terms of municipal limits and governmental jurisdiction. The area and borderlines of the city, which will become the agreed borders between the Palestinian and Israeli states, must be delineated so as to be mutually acceptable.

Jerusalemites face an uncertain future and one that is to be shaped externally without their consultation or knowledge. The fear of an unacceptable future scenario or complex of scenarios therefore continually penetrates the psych of all Jerusalemites. Underpinning these fears is a history of unimplemented resolutions, broken accords and legal belligerence spanning the last 50 years.

Jerusalem has been subject to many political events and cumulative de facto measures throughout the years of conflict, but has never been brought any just solution agreed upon by any local, regional or international body. Furthermore, no external party has acknowledged or legitimized the measures that have been imposed upon the city’s character.

The UN resolution of 1947, recommending that Jerusalem be treated as a separate entity [‘Corpus Seperatum’] under the supervision of a special international system assigned by the UN, has never been materialized. The 1948 war resulted in the imposition of a ceasefire line that divided the city into an East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule and a West Jerusalem conquered by Israel with a UN supervised “No Man's Land” between both ‘cities’. The Israeli-Jordanian truce agreement stipulates that “this arrangement should not have any effect over the rights, claims or stands of either party in the final peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine.” East and West Jerusalem are under contingent and temporary occupation, and are waiting for a political settlement to determine their future.

In 1967 Israel occupied East Jerusalem, announcing its annexation and the imposition of Israeli rules and regulation. This act stood in defiance of International law based on UN Security Council resolution 242, which declares the illegitimacy of Israel's occupation of others lands by force and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Since 1967, the Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem have declared their rejection of this occupation, forced annexation and expressed their resistance to Israeli policies and practices.

However, Israel imposed its rule, law and plans upon East Jerusalem. The Israelis took a census of the Palestinians in 1967 and forcibly issued them with blue Israeli residency ID cards, thereby imposing the implementation of Israeli laws and administration.

At the doorstep of the final status negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, the inhabitants of Jerusalem harbor many interwoven fears regarding the future of their national, political and civil life. Amongst these fears are:

1. Jerusalem Citizenship: Will the Palestinians be able to obtain equal citizenship, to reside, to work and to move about as freely as Israelis, or will they be subject to conditions that constrain this right? For example, under current regulations Jerusalemites who are absent from the city for more than one year lose their right of residency. In addition, Palestinian Jerusalemites have to prove that their center of life is within the city, or face the same consequence. Will the negotiations result in a future Palestinian-Israeli law that recognizes Jerusalemites' right to Palestinian national and political affiliation while enjoying justice and equality? Will they be left unattended in the absence of a Palestinian agenda; or will they remain imprisoned and contained by Israeli laws?
2. Designs and Projects of Municipal Planning: Both sides fear yielding to the other the power of planning the city and its neighborhoods. If two municipalities are to develop within two cities—East and West—on what basis should such planning and zoning be made, and how would each municipality regulate building, licensing and taxes, among other issues?
3. Social and Health Services: What will be the future of the services that were provided during the years of the occupation? Will there be a viable alternative, taking into consideration the current high expenses associated with health care? Where are the Palestinian socio-economic institutions to carry on the burden and when will they begin to address the challenge?
4. Nationality: 10,000 Palestinian Jerusalemites have obtained an Israeli passport for various reasons, among which is their fear of losing their residency right or failing to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem, as required by the harsh Israeli rules that govern residency in the city. Other Jerusalemites cite the insecurity of the future Palestinian social and political system, taking into consideration the difficulties that the PNA faces in building a social and political system in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as their reason for carrying an Israeli passport. This excuse is based on personal gain, as such individuals seek benefits from Israeli organizations and in exchange, accept the imposed circumstances, rather than await future developments. This shortsightedness can be attributed to the absence of a collective national stand and the absence of a higher political and national authority in the city. Today there is awareness of this dangerous situation and a call by the PA and other leading bodies to ‘close the file’ and to punish those who are continuing to fall in that direction has been issued. At the same time there is a local call within the community to hold a Palestinian passport.
5. Future Negotiation Scenarios: Palestinian concerns about what was known as the "Abu Mazen-Beilin document" demonstrate the people's lack of confidence in the Palestinian negotiation curriculum. This has occurred despite the fact that there has been high level denial of such documents and official refusal of the existence of any of the Israeli scenarios on the sharing of East Jerusalem. Furthermore, the absence of an opposition and the influential role that such a voice should have on the course of events justifies the public fear of what is being imposed upon them as a result of these negotiations. The centralization of many PNA systems in Abu Dis and the increase in the number of committees dealing with the issue of Jerusalem without success further enhances Palestinian concerns.

Palestinian negotiators consider the presence of Arab Palestinian public opinion concerning Palestinian rights and facts in Jerusalem to be one of their tools for invalidating Israeli claims. The Palestinian case should not be restrained by the negotiation agreement decided in Oslo, because the agreement in the DoP applies to the issues of the transitional stage and should not affect the issues of the final solution. If the Oslo agreements refer to UN resolutions 242 and 338 of 1967, the issue of Jerusalem refers to the International law and the UN resolution 181 of 1947. The main line of negotiations should not differentiate between political and religious components, and the border determination must take into consideration the municipal limits of 1947, prior to Israel's unilateral and illeoccupation and expansion.

The fate of Jerusalem's citizens should not be determined by the laws of the occupying power, but a rule that assures the basic rights of citizens. These rights include equality and justice, as well as the right to express national identity and to be governed by the leadership of their choice. The doors of Jerusalem should be open to all pilgrims, the holy places should not be subject to Israeli measurements and the status quo of the holy sites should be maintained for the preservation of the city's cultural and architectural heritage. The landmarks of the city should not be changed, and the Israeli practices and Judaization measures should be ceased and corrected.

The Jerusalem community needs a national political address to build up their collective stance as part of the Palestinian homeland, its people and its future. An Arab municipality capable of facing the Israeli scenarios justified by pragmatism and objectivity should formulate the social provisions and services. The presence of Palestinians in the city justifies continued Arab and Islamic support and responsibility towards the issue of Jerusalem. This reality should motivate Arab decision-makers to cease all forms of normalization with Israel as long as the issue of Jerusalem remains closed in the current Israeli mentality.

Working towards the present and the future of the city requires a faithfulness and commitment to Jerusalem as the symbol of Palestinian national identity, the address of their political existence, the center of Islamic and Christian doctrines and the capital of the Palestinian State.