Jerusalem: Eye of the Storm
by Corinne Whitlatch
Churches for Middle East Peace
On a clear day, a sharp-eyed person standing on the heights of Jerusalem has
a wide overview of Israel and the West Bank. Jerusalem is in the minds and hearts
of millions of people; and on every day, from everywhere there are Jews, Christians
and Muslims. In prayers, in songs and in religious art, the holy city is present,
a living symbol of profound and timeless significance.
To speak literally, Jerusalem is first of all, a modern city for its residents
with some concerns familiar to us such as traffic, crime, schools and discrimination.
At the next literal level, Jerusalem is both Israel's designated capital, where
parliamentarians deliberate in the Knesset, and the principal city of Palestinian
society and the economy. Yet, ironically, Jerusalem is not recognized as Israel's
capital by the international community, and the nascent state of Palestine has
no sovereignty over any part of it. The Arab Christians and Muslims of East Jerusalem,
which was occupied by Israel in 1967 and annexed to the state, live in a surreal
situation: Following pressure from the U.S., Israel allowed the Palestinians
of East Jerusalem to vote in the January elections for the Palestinian Legislative
Council.
Jerusalem is at the center of the conflict and will surely be at the center
of its solution, which at the present time is obscured by the thunder and lightning
of political storms.
Palestinians in the Maelstrom
The Palestinian Legislative Council election results surprised many observers.
The victory by candidates associated with Hamas has sparked numerous debates
regarding democracy, the predicament of the Palestinian people, the role of the
international donor community, and the future of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
Commentators argue about whom to blame for Fatah's loss, but there is widespread
agreement that the elections were remarkably free and fair. Just how Palestinian
governance will congeal is not easy to predict and, with events changing rapidly,
the situation will differ from the time of this writing and your reading.
Hamas, with a 20-year-old charter that deserves its designation as a terrorist
organization, campaigned as a domestic reform movement. Khalil Shikaki, the well-regarded
Palestinian pollster, published a February 15 revision of election-day exit polling
results to take into account those who refused to talk to pollsters. The "Palestinian
vote for Hamas on the day of elections should not, however, be interpreted as
a vote against the peace process. About 60 percent of all voters identified themselves
as supporters of the peace process, while only 17 percent saw themselves as opposed
to it and 23 percent saw themselves somewhere in the middle between opposition
and support."
But given Hamas' history of both vitriolic rhetoric and horrific acts, and
its staunch rejection of Israel's existence and negotiated agreements, the U.S.
and Quartet consider it a pre-condition of foreign aid directed to a Hamas-led
government that it renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist.
In a forum sponsored by Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), Rob
Malley (a former negotiator in the Clinton Administration, now with the International
Crisis Group), reminded listeners of the alternative to Hamas's victory - a Fatah-led
Palestinian Authority with strong opposition from Hamas and a continued stalemate.
A similar point was made by Zeev Schiff, a military analyst for Israel's Haaretz newspaper, "Deep in my heart, I know it's impossible to reach any peace
agreement with the Palestinians without Hamas" because without it, the Palestinian
Authority (PA) is not representative enough.
Campaign Season in Israel
As Palestinians maneuver to form their new government, which may take weeks,
Israel is in full campaign mode, preparing for its national election on March
28. Tom Friedman, the widely syndicated columnist, wrote about the dovish sentiment
of the voters. The Likud party launched their campaign with accusations that
the new Kadima party plans to pull Israel back to the 1967 borders. Likud quickly
backed off that line, Friedman surmises, because Likud realized that many Israeli
voters like that idea.
Ehud Olmert, the Interim Prime Minister and Sharon's heir-apparent in leading
Kadima, said Israel would retain "united Jerusalem" and that the completion
of the separation barrier in the Jerusalem area is a top priority. Labor party
leader Amir Peretz, an early member of Peace Now and a signer of the 2002 Geneva
Accords, hastened to make clear that he too would not divide Jerusalem.
An author of the Geneva Accords and head of the leftist party Meretz, Yossi
Beilin, actually opened his campaign with an ad that says: "Beilin Will
Divide Jerusalem." A decade ago the campaign slogan of Likud leader Bibi
Netanyahu, "Peres will divide Jerusalem," was considered a wicked libel.
Today, it's a campaign slogan, indicating the proposal is no longer taboo.
What Next?
The huge political question is whether the soon-to-be elected Israeli government
and the new Palestinian government will be willing and able to negotiate with
each other. With Hamas defeating Fatah as lead party of the Palestinian Authority,
the distinction between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the
PA gains new significance. It is the PLO, and not the PA, which has negotiated
with and signed agreements with Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas is both President of
the PA and Chairman of the PLO.
If a cease-fire holds, the weary public and wary politicians on both sides
may prefer a continued stalemate. Israel may choose to act unilaterally, severing
physical and diplomatic contact with the Palestinians while the Hamas-led Palestinian
Authority sticks to the domestic focus of the campaign, cleaning up corruption
and delivering improved living conditions in the West Bank and Gaza.
The Bush Administration is continuing to refer to the Road Map peace plan
and final status negotiations. Some analysts think the Road Map is history and
that a front-ended approach might be less vulnerable to sabotage. This tactic
would begin with some variation of the Clinton-Taba-Geneva two-state solution
plan, with the Israelis and Palestinians responsible for negotiating how to get
there. One version has a draft peace-treaty put to a referendum by both Israelis
and Palestinians. Caution is necessary, because another final-status push that
fails cannot be risked at this time.
The Arab League document of March, 2002 may come back into play. Hamas' acceptance
of the Arab peace proposal might be seen as equivalent to an explicit recognition
of Israel. The plan, referred to as the "Beirut Initiative" or the "Saudi
Plan," was buried in the rubble of a large terrorist attack in Netanya that
was carried out by Hamas. This Saudi-initiated plan holds out the vision of the
Arab Countries and Israel living "in peace and good neighborliness and provid[ing]
future generations with security, stability, and prosperity" pending Israel's
withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. The plan stipulates that
East Jerusalem would be the capital of Palestine.
"East Jerusalem is the heart of Palestinian society; without it as the
Palestinian capital there is no contiguous state, no symbol of reconciliation
between Jews, Muslims and Christians, no peace.... There needs to be a fresh
focus by the international community on ending the occupation of East Jerusalem.
Despite how much of an uphill battle it would be, I don't see any other way that
would really move us toward an end to the conflict." The head of an international
organization providing humanitarian services in Jerusalem and the West Bank.
Do No Harm
Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation, speaking to Congressional staffers in
mid-February, predicted that substantive progress cannot be expected for two
to three years because the necessary level of trust does not exist now and because
the Bush Administration is engaged elsewhere. He expects an eventual settlement
along the lines of the two-state solution laid out by President Clinton as well
as in the Taba negotiations and Geneva Accords. For now, Jones urges a policy
of limiting damage - do no harm - don't make getting to that end goal more difficult.
But some harm is being concocted in the halls of Congress and, according to
press reports, by some in the Administration. There is legislation that aims
to permanently restrict U.S. relations with Palestinian officials and, by means
of cutting financial aid, bring the Hamas-led Palestinian government to its knees
and out the door. In human terms, cuts of aid from the U.S. and the E.U., coupled
with Israel's decision to retain the $50 million it collects monthly in taxes
for the PA, translates into humanitarian disaster. Currently, 60 percent of the
population lives below the poverty line.
We need to recognize that the victory of Hamas changes the relationship of
the U.S. government and the Palestinian Authority. There is a difference between
appropriate legislation intended to moderate the new Palestinian government and
efforts to collectively punish the Palestinians, bringing them and aspirations
of freedom to utter defeat.
Advocates for peace and justice will urge lawmakers to keep in mind that the
objective still is a secure Israel that is recognized by its neighbors, and an
economically viable state of Palestine, that is recognized as legitimate at home
and abroad. And, central to the two-state solution of the Clinton/Taba/Geneva
plans is a sharing of the sovereignty and landscape of Jerusalem.
Sowing Seeds of Peace
"Despite the fact that the current discussion on Jerusalem may seem detached
from reality, as there is no indication of the renewal of the peace process and
bringing an end to the conflict, the reality in the Middle East is ever-changing,
and the seeds of peace must be sown ahead of time so they may bloom when the
time is right." According to Ora Ahirmeir, director of the Jerusalem Institute
for Israel Studies, Israel and the Palestinians must permit the international
community to take part in the administration of Jerusalem's holy and historical
sites.
This groundbreaking study from a mainstream Israeli think-tank urges the Israeli
public to rethink their traditional opposition to 3rd party monitoring and settling
disputes. Alternative options include territorial division of the Old City Basin
(the Old City and historical sites near it) with international supervision; joint-management
and distribution of powers in the basin, with international backing; and authority
over the historical basin entrusted with an international body. The options of
full Israeli sovereignty and full Palestinian sovereignty are deemed likely to
be rejected by one side or the other.
The RAND Corporation addressed security issues regarding Jerusalem in a newly
released study, "Building a Successful Palestinian State: Security," which
is a companion to earlier RAND reports. From the report, "The analysis shows
there is no security impediment to Jerusalem being the capital for both Israel
and Palestine. There are a number of possible ways for jurisdiction and security
responsibilities in East Jerusalem to be shared by the two sides. From a security
perspective, there could be international aspects, especially in regard to Temple
Mount (known as the Haram al-Sharif to Muslims), with either mixed Israeli-Palestinian
control or participation of others."
The recommendations of an international role meshes with the principle set
by the Holy See that the rights of the various communities "must be ensured" and
that "the Holy City's special religious status and shrines proper to each
religion should be protected by an appropriate juridical safeguard that is internationally
respected and guaranteed."
In this time of uncertainty and pessimism, when Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking
seems derailed, citizen advocacy is even more important. The Administration and
Congress need to know that U.S. churches, church members and clergy want the
United States government to place a high priority on promoting peace between
Israel and the Palestinians, to prevent actions that would harm future negotiations
and to recognize that sharing Jerusalem is key to a successful two-state solution
to the conflict.
Advocates are asked to encourage local Church leaders to write to the President
and to send copies of that letter to their representative and two senators and
to Churches for Middle East Peace's office. As examples: members of a congregation
could join their pastor in signing a letter; a minister might invite others in
the synod or diocese to co-sign; a priest could ask clergy of neighborhood churches
to sign together; a regional executive could organize a letter from the local
council of churches.
Include the following points in your letter:
- We write to urge your active, sustained leadership in promoting Israeli-Palestinian
peace.
- Our churches have long-standing policy supporting a negotiated two-state
solution to the conflict that leads to a secure Israel alongside a viable state
of Palestine.
- We embrace the vision of Jerusalem as the heritage, home and hope of two
peoples and three faiths, with Jerusalem as the capital of both Israel and the
future state of Palestine.
Toward the goal of peace, we ask you to:
- reject unilateral actions by Israel
that would prejudge final status negotiations on borders and the status of Jerusalem
- urge the Palestinian government to commit to nonviolence, to recognize
Israel and to accept previous agreements
- continue to engage the moderate
Palestinian leadership and help the Palestinian people
- provide assurances
that Jerusalem will be shared
- promote religious freedom in the Holy Land
and recognize the important role of the Christian community
General Assembly
"Vigorously urges the U.S. government, the government
of Israel, and the Palestinian leadership to move swiftly, and with resolve,
to recognize that the only way out of this chronic and vicious impasse is to
abandon all approaches that exacerbate further strife, lay aside arrogant political
posturing, and get on with forging negotiated compromises that open a path to
peace." (Minutes, 2004, p. 853) |
