JERUSALEM: WHERE THERE’S A WILL, THERE’S A WAY

The proposals here below and several possible combinations thereof have been discussed in various forums, and show that dialogue and the development of compromise proposals are possible even for a problem as seemingly intractable as Jerusalem. The proposals made seek to elaborate various sharing and cooperative arrangements that would leave the City undivided while preserving its unique role as a national, cultural and religious symbol for both Israelis and Palestinians. They are predicated on the emergence of peaceful relations between the two sides, the establishment of a Palestinian national entity alongside Israel, mutual recognition of the legitimacy of the claim to Jerusalem as the political capital of each side, and the development of new concepts of sovereignty to allow for the coexistence of two sovereignties as well as the rights of the international community with the City.

Proposal 1

The Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information (IPCRI), an institution of prominent Palestinian and Israeli personalities envisages a geographically undivided city which is, however, politically divided so that it can serve as two capitals with two municipal structures within its boundaries. Under the plan, sovereignty would be attached to territory and would be determined on the basis of the national make-up of neighbourhoods, considered a practicable option since there are no integrated neighbourhoods in Jerusalem. Accordingly, Jewish neighbourhoods would fall under Israeli sovereignty and Palestinian neighbourhoods under Palestinian sovereignty. The plan also envisages that Palestinians would be compensated for their land used to build settlements in Eastern Jerusalem, and that the map of the city would be redrawn to genuinely represent the area's actual demographic balance. With regard to the future administration of the City, the IPCRI plan envisages that each side would have full control over its own territory and would be able to build, plan and use the land as it saw fit for the well-being of its own people. However, it would be recognized that physically Jerusalem is one city and its infrastructure would be coordinated and developed cooperatively, through joint planning commissions and a joint mayors' forum which would be the ultimate authority for the resolution of disputes. Special arrangements would be made for the Old City, including the establishment of a council representing all of the interests of the local and international communities in the Old City. The plan also contains provisions with regard to the status of the Holy Places, the legal system, the police system, the need for a constitutional charter for Jerusalem to be adopted by both sides, and other aspects.

Proposal 2

Another approach, which seeks to defuse the issue of sovereignty and with it, "the battle for demographic advantage", was that developed by a Jerusalem City Council member, in consultation with Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals and politicians. The plan proposes redrawing the City's boundaries to quadruple the current land area, adding an almost equal amount of territory from Israel and the West Bank, and incorporating in the new metropolitan area a population of about 450,000 residents of each nationality. The entire area, according to this plan, would be under the jurisdiction of a greater Jerusalem council, and would be divided into 20 cities, each with its own municipal government. Powers currently exercised by the national Government would be devolved to the metropolitan and local administrations, including health services, education, the courts, planning and development, and taxation. The Jewish cities within the expanded metropolitan area would be under Israeli sovereignty, and the Palestinian ones under Palestinian sovereignty, with Jerusalem serving as the capital of both States. Because the role of the central government in the metropolis itself would be vastly reduced, so would the importance of sovereignty. Functionally, Jerusalem would be an autonomous unit, where Israelis would be citizens of Israel and vote for Israeli mayors and city council, and Palestinians would be citizens of a Palestinian State and vote for Palestinian municipal administrations. The metropolitan council would be joint Israeli-Palestinian, with delegates from each city and a rotating chairperson. The Holy Places would be managed by a body made up of delegates from all three faiths. The plan also envisages that because of the particular sensitivity of the Old City, it would have its own municipal government, with both the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Government having veto power over any changes in the status quo, and with representatives of the three religions on the City Council.

Proposal 3

Another proposal, advanced by some American personalities, envisages a condominium over the City, taking as a precedent some historical examples of shared sovereignty (the United Kingdom and France over the New Hebrides; France and Spain over Andorra; the Allies over Berlin after the Second World War). That model provides for joint sovereignty over an undivided city, which would be the capital of two States and be administered by an umbrella municipal council and local district councils. The City itself would be demilitarized, and there would be some form of economic union between the two States, with minimal controls on transit of persons and goods. Since neighbourhoods are not integrated, Israelis would be subject to Israeli administration, and Palestinians to Palestinian administration, through their respective district councils. As many aspects of municipal governance as possible would be devolved to the district council level, reserving to the umbrella municipal council only those major matters that can only be administered efficiently at a city-wide level. The plan also envisions the possibility of developing a flexible system for the application of either Palestinian or Israeli law, based not on a purely territorial basis but on various circumstances such as subject matter, the parties involved and the municipal district in which the issue or dispute arises.

Proposal 4

Another formulation, proposed by a prominent Jordanian official, distinguishes between the ancient walled City, as the locus of most intense religious, historical and political attachment by both Arabs and Jews; and the areas outside the walls, built up in modern times. In that view, the essential dispute about Jerusalem concerns not the secular City but rather the area within the walls, where the Holy Places are located and believers from the three religions have historically made their home. Accordingly, the proposal seeks to defuse the dispute by encouraging compromise over the areas outside the walls but within present municipal boundaries, and recommending that no State have political sovereignty over the walled City. The latter would belong to the whole world and to the three religions and would remain a spiritual basin, as it was originally founded and universally conceived. It would be governed by a council representing the highest Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious authorities, each of which would be responsible for running and maintaining the holy sites of its faith and participating on an equal footing in the administration of the walled City. With regard to the areas outside the walls, this framework envisages in general terms that the urban areas stretching to the east, north-east and south-east would be under Palestinian sovereignty and those to the west, north-west and south-west under Israeli sovereignty.