| Editorials |
Jerusalem: A City in Danger
The issue of Jerusalem was discussed at Camp David II as the most important final status issue. The Palestinian negotiating team led by President Arafat referred to the agreements signed with Israel and the international resolutions relevant to the issue. The then Prime Minister of Israel, Barak, tried, however, to widen the gap between what these resolutions required and what Israel was willing to implement. Denis Ross, the then US peace envoy, played a destructive role by convincing President Clinton to adopt the Israeli position which contradicted the agreements signed under his administration’s sponsorship.
Barak and Ross were forced to discuss the issue because our team insisted on considering Jerusalem as the key to peace. To maintain their sovereignty on the city, the Israelis presented a mixture of weird and complicated suggestions. These suggestions called for dividing the city into small suburbs using in an ambiguous manner different concepts of sovereignty. For example, Palestinians can enjoy sovereignty that extends from the surface of the earth to the sky on their suburbs and holy places whereas Israel can maintain a below-the-surface-of-the-earth sovereignty that allows it to continue the digging under al-Haram al-Sharif in search for the alleged temple.
The Israeli delegation suggested separating Muslims and Christians in addition to dividing Christian areas, in a way that creates a new political, administrative, and factional mosaic. They also called for allowing Jews into al-Haram al-Sharif, something that was never discussed during the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
After President Clinton returned to Camp David from the conference of the industrial countries in Okinawa, President Arafat sent him a letter outlining the complications resulting from the Israeli position. These were:
The Israelis wanted to extend their sovereignty on al-Haram al- Sharif or part of it, and this created an atmosphere of irresponsibility and futility. Arabs, Muslims and Christians would not accept undermining the status of their holy places.
The Israelis insisted on separating the territory from the population. Israel wanted to keep its sovereignty on the land in return for allowing the people to run some of their affairs. The Israeli position would eventually result into dividing the city, especially the eastern part, into smaller compartments to be run under different kinds of rule. This was against the interests of the Palestinian citizens and against the desire to maintain an open city free of all the current complications.
It is important to add here that when Barak was criticized for his apparently conciliatory position on Jerusalem, he claimed that he was not ready to offer the Palestinians any concessions. He added that he just wanted to expose Arafat’s rigid position on the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees.
Since the Israeli position violated UN resolutions 242, 338, 252 and the principle of land for peace, the Palestinian negotiating team called for implementing these resolutions. Resolution 252 in particular called on Israel to stop all measures that influence the legal status of the city. The Resolution recalled General Assembly resolution 2253 of 4 July 1967 and 2254 of 14 July 1967 and reaffirms the need for a just and lasting peace.
The resolution also
deplored the failure of Israel to comply with the General Assembly resolutions mentioned,
considered that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, including expropriation of land and properties, which might change the legal status of Jerusalem are invalid and cannot change the status, and
urgently called upon Israel to rescind all measures taken and to desist from taking any further action which might change the status of Jerusalem.
When Barak realized that he could not impose his position on the Palestinians, he resorted to force. Sharon’s infamous visit to al-Haram al-Sharif that was coordinated with Barak sparked off the Intifada. The Palestinian people renewed their struggle to achieve their rights: to free East Jerusalem and al-Aqsa, to return the refugees to their homes, and to gain independence.
Sharon’s position on Jerusalem differs from that of Barak in that he is not deceptive: the Israeli Prime Minister views the city as the eternal capital of Israel. He expressed his willingness to give the Palestinian people a ‘state’ on 42% of the West Bank but without Jerusalem or free borders and without giving the refugees the right to return to their homes. Settlements in his view should be allowed to grow without restrictions. If Palestinians accept these conditions, they can have their own ‘empire’.
Last week, Sharon adopted a plan to isolate Jerusalem to reinforce Israel’s occupation of the city. The plan was presented by the head of the so-called the council of national security, Uzi Dayan, and the head of Jerusalem’s district, Miki Levy. This stressed the security dimension of the plan since it ostensibly aimed to improve security in Jerusalem following each suicide attack, but Sharon is also interested in the plan for its political, religious, economic, and demographic dimensions. The plan is based on the following:
There should be no barriers between the eastern section and the western one, or between the Arab suburbs and the Jewish ones;
The building of one kilometer long walls in certain parts of the city;
The building of fences and other barriers in other parts;
Posting signs that show entry into certain areas as a criminal offence;
Using security devices;
The establishment of five border police squadrons to carry out inspection tasks.
The plan annexes certain areas that were supposed to be transferred to the PNA in accordance with the peace agreements, and it annexes settlements like Ma’ale Adomim, Giv’at Ze’ev, and Gilo.
It is clear that the plan has the following dimensions:
The Political Dimension
The plan aims to abort the peace process. It also aims to put an end to the agreements signed with Israel that specify the final status issues. The plan strongly affects the status of these issues including Jerusalem, settlements, borders, refugees, and neighborly relations. It, for example,
Writes off Jerusalem as a final status issue since it considers ‘Greater Jerusalem’ that includes the surrounding suburbs as the eternal capital of Israel, and this according to Sharon is not negotiable;
Reinforces settlements;
Remarks the borders of the city in line with the Zionist ideology that allows Palestinians in ‘Judea and Samaria’ some form of self-rule.
The Religious Dimension
The plan comes amid a campaign orchestrated by the Israeli far right that calls for allowing Jews into al-Haram al-Sharif and for building a synagogue there. One of these extremists is Ehud Olmert whose incitement may lead to a religious war.
The US war against Muslim countries and organizations has given fundamentalists both among the Israeli public and in the government the green light to ignite a religious war. These extreme elements have no respect for other religions. It is, therefore, the responsibility of Arabs everywhere, Muslims and Christians, to stand firmly against this racist attitude that has no place in Islam or Christianity.
The Security Dimension
The Israeli security apparatus has adopted the plan to avoid further deterioration resulting from the suicide attacks. The plan includes building an 11 kilometer long wall in the southern part of the city between Abu Ghnaim Mountain and Gilo, in addition to other kinds of barriers in Jewish areas like Ma’ale Adomim, Giv’at Ze’ev and Gilo. This makes the separating wall extends for 69 kilometers.
Despite the different speculations made concerning the effect of this wall on the security situation in the city, it will not have the desired effect for the Israelis. It will also make life difficult for Jews as well as Arabs. The right of Arabs to move freely in the city will be hampered because of the Israeli measures. Dr. Yitzrael Kemchi believes that the wall will have a catastrophic economic effect on both Arabs and Jews. Arabs, in his view, will not enjoy the services that their Jewish neighbors enjoy; Jews will suffer a great deal from the resulting transportation troubles.
The Demographic Dimension
Sharon assumes that tightening the Israeli control on the city will complicate life for its Arab dwellers, and this will oblige them to move out of the city. Increasing the tax burden on the Arabs will add to their daily difficulties and will quicken their compulsory transfer.
This devilish plan requires a clear position on the part of Arab, Muslim, and all peace loving countries that look forward to peace and the protection of all holy places in Jerusalem. The joint outcry made by Muslim and Christian clergy men indicates the existential threat that Jerusalem is facing these days, and the need for Arabs to awake from the deep slumber they have fallen in.
We call on all Arab and Muslim countries to fulfill their obligations toward Jerusalem in order to protect it from the barbaric attack organized by a terrorist state that has the support of the US Administration.
Muslims, Christians and Jews have to do their utmost to prevent the Zionist movement from igniting a religious war that does not serve the interests of anybody except the Zionists. As racists, they have been practicing all forms of state terror against liberation movements including ours that aims to end the Israeli occupation.
Revolution until Victory.