The Arab States and Jerusalem
Mr. Faisal Husseini

Pre-1967

Jerusalem was the capital or the main city in the Ottoman period and it had an extremely special status. Following the partition in 1917, Jerusalem was made the administrative capital of Palestine, which catered to the sensitivities of the British, the Palestinians and the Jews. The Jerusalemites developed Jerusalem’s qualities and characteristics as a capital.

In 1948, many of Jerusalem’s villages and the surrounding areas were occupied, and Amman became the new administrative capital. With the reduction of services, emigration from the city occurred as administrative jobs became available elsewhere. Jerusalem, nevertheless, was able to maintain its character and grew into an economic and social center in spite of the first nakba.

Post 1967

After 1967, Jerusalem lost both its role and its population and witnessed three catastrophes: the first and second were Israel’s occupation and subsequent annexation of the city. The third disaster was that the Jerusalemites who had been abroad at the time of the June War were no longer able to return. Matters had been worsened by the fact that the occupation began in July and not in August, when people used to return from outside. Israel annexed the land and not the people, and Jerusalem’s Palestinians have the status of residents rather than citizens.

Israeli general policies on Jerusalem limited the growth of the Palestinian population as far as possible but while attempting to maintain the status quo so as not to harm relations with the Arab states, particularly Jordan. Today, Israel is enforcing policies to reduce the number of Jerusalemites by setting up new criteria for obtaining or maintaining residency status, which apply only to the Palestinian population of the city. Accordingly, a Palestinian can allegedly forfeit his right to residency in Jerusalem if he acquires citizenship of another country other than Jordan, or/and if he has been abroad for more than seven years without establishing contact with the Israeli authorities.

Israeli Strategies

Israel applied three main strategies to separate the Palestinian Jerusalem population from the city:

Isolation:
With the closure Israel isolates Jerusalem and threatens the Palestinians with the prospect of life without Jerusalem.
The closure has drastically hampered the functioning of Palestinian institutions: many of their employees are prevented from entering Jerusalem, while the institutions themselves are constantly threatened with closure.
By preventing political meetings with international delegations, Israel has tried to isolate East Jerusalem from the international community.

2) Expulsion:
Physical expulsion: The Israelis have attempted to expel Palestinians from the city by devising pretexts such as the concept of the center of life. Israel is now confiscating the identity cards of Palestinian Jerusalemites under such racist pretexts.
Economic expulsion: The closure has caused Palestinian economic activity to shift away from Jerusalem.



3) Occupation:
Israel is changing the demographic character of Jerusalem by surrounding it with settlements.
It is creating Jewish geographic continuity by constructing and linking the settlements.
Such policies have reduced the Palestinian population areas to islands.

Palestinian Responses

After 1967 the Palestinians took steps, including the following, to protect Jerusalem’s character and to administer the city:

The Higher Islamic Council was formed to administer Palestinians in the West Bank.
The Husni Al-Ashhab schools were established to counter Israel’s decision to establish municipal schools to enforce the Israeli curriculum.
The charitable societies refused to apply for licenses from the Israeli authorities. These societies functioned more as a governing body than as private institutions.
Current efforts to save the Maqassed Hospital are part of the attempt to maintain an Arab health care system in Jerusalem.

Even during the Intifada, Jerusalem was able to maintain its Palestinian character: the Chamber of Commerce, for example, remained totally independent from its Israeli counterpart. A new political situation arose in which the Palestinians emphasized that meetings would be held in East Jerusalem (the National Palace Hotel). After the Madrid Conference the Orient House became the place to meet, under the Palestinian flag, and unofficial diplomatic immunity was enforced on the premises. In 1993 the Palestinians were able to establish a diluted variant of autonomy by having uniformed Palestinian guards at the Orient House.

Approaching the Arab World

The Palestinians have clear goals but lack the means to realize them. In 1986 a committee was established to save Jerusalem. One of the accomplishments of this committee was to establish the Burj Al-Laqlaq Community Center. The health sector is also a vital area, but one that requires US$15 million to allow hospitals to provide specialized services. The PNA is paying the salaries of teachers in Jerusalem. Approximately US$30 million are needed to allow Jerusalem to maintain the status quo. A telethon could be organized under the theme of buying time for Jerusalem.

Jerusalem was put at the top of the Arab ministers’ agenda and is an issue that can be dealt with regardless of Arab differences. However, the Jerusalem Committee, which emerged from the Islamic Conference, achieved nothing.

What is needed is a united Arab effort in the name of Jerusalem. Jerusalem can be a means whereby the Palestinian factions in Syria and Lebanon as well as Syria itself remain the center of attention. Jordan also need to focus on Jerusalem.

Approaching the International Community

There are three predicaments:

The Jews are the smallest gathering in the world but hold the greatest power in the Middle East.
The Muslims are the largest gathering in the region but are the weakest power in the world.
The Christians are the largest power in the world but are the smallest gathering in the region.

We must convince the European states and particularly the Christian communities that, as illustrated in Islamic history, Islamic-Christian relations are stronger and more honorable than those between Christianity and Judaism.