Interview with Prof. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, head, Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies; Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Can you explain the challenge Jerusalem poses to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
In the research field of conflict resolution we distinguish between two elements – interests and protected values. Interests are based on specific criteria and needs and can thus be quantified and divided. The issue of territory and borders in the Israeli Palestinian conflict for example is an interest and can therefore be discussed in terms of percentage of territory, land swaps, etcetera. Protected values on the other hand are principal values, usually based on religion, history and culture, and are part of the national identity. Their unique characteristics make protected values extremely difficult to negotiate and compromise on. In the past, Jerusalem as a whole was a protected value. Today, mostly thanks to the Camp David Summit of 2000, many people on both sides understand that some aspects of the Jerusalem issue can be looked at in terms of interests but others, the more challenging ones, remain, for many, protected values.
Can you outline the specific aspects of this challenge?
The problem is centered around five challenging issues, all of which require a solution that is yet to be found: a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, the future of the Jewish neighborhoods, the future of the Arab neighborhoods, the Old City and the Holy/Historical Basin Area and the Temple Mount, which is part of the Holy Basin but acutely problematic in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Camp David summit addressed those points but failed to bridge the gaps between the Israeli and the Palestinian teams particularly on the last two issues.
I’ll start with the most serious challenge. Without getting into historical detail, the Temple Mount, also known as the Noble Sanctuary and al-Aqsa Mosque, is extremely important to both sides who consider it a protected value. Sovereignty on the Temple Mount is therefore impossible to divide. Palestinian negotiators insist on absolute sovereignty. Israeli negotiators in the past agreed to Palestinian sovereignty but with Israeli/Jewish affiliation. That, however, would have had historical religious implication that the Palestinians did not want to risk. The issue of the Temple Mount can help project light on many complexities of our conflict. To put it simply, both sides need to change their attitudes toward protected values otherwise negotiations will last indefinitely. It would have been better, for example, to stay away from the psychological barrier of determining the national sovereignty of the Temple Mount by defining God as the absolute sovereign and focusing instead on the practical management of this holy site.
We at the Institute studied and suggested five alternative solutions to the Holy Historical Basin, including the Temple Mount, without recommending one over another: Full Palestinian sovereignty; full Israeli sovereignty; joint Israeli-Palestinian management; territorial division of the Old City to the four religious quarters; and an international governing body similar to one that was suggested in the 1947 UN partition plan.
There are caveats, however, to each of these proposed solutions. The first two options are clearly not viable, although both sides are happy to accept the one that works in their favor. A joint management regime requires mutual trust, which does not exist now. Territorial division would ruin the Old City with walls, barriers, checkpoints and soldiers. A specialized international regime to run the Old City, including the holy sites and its 40,000 residents, requires both sides to give up their sovereignty which neither is ready to do at this point.
On the issue of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, it is possible even now to start turning East Jerusalem, outside of the municipal boundaries and without the Old City, into the Palestinian capital. There is already a parliament building in Abu Dis, for example. The second phase of the Road Map suggested a Palestinian state with temporary boundaries as a step on the way to a permanent two-state solution. Setting up the Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem before reaching an agreement could be considered part of this phase. The Palestinians fear, though, that the temporary solution would soon enough turn into a permanent one. This is one area in which the international community can help by monitoring the process and setting up a timeline to ensure that the temporary situation is substituted with a permanent solution within a specific period of time.
As for the future of the Jewish/Arab neighborhoods: we annexed neighborhoods in Jerusalem and enlarged the city geographically, but in the process also added 200,000 Palestinians unwillingly. The Arab neighborhoods would have to become part of the future Palestinian state, but at the same time, their residents have civic rights in Israel such as social security, health care and education. While any solution would be broad and inclusive, the individual rights of the residents of East Jerusalem cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is clear that dividing the city to separate Jewish and Arab neighborhoods while keeping Israel’s obligations to its residents, is a serious challenge mostly in the areas of security, human rights and logistics.
On the security front, both former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and current PM Ehud Olmert spoke about convergence—separation from the Palestinians, including in East Jerusalem. However, following the Qassam attacks on the communities bordering the Gaza Strip after disengagement, Olmert backed off. The fear is that Hamas or another terrorist organization would take over an Arab neighborhood adjacent to a Jewish one and attack from there. Hamas won the January 2006 elections in Jerusalem but while politically the movement was, and still is, strong there, the presence of Israeli security forces prevents it from taking over parts of the city physically. The international community could also help by assuming responsibility for the security situation either in the form of peacekeeping force or in another setting so that Israeli troops don’t need to stay in Arab neighborhoods.
In terms of logistics, some Arab neighborhoods are simply easier to separate from than others. On human rights, there is the issue of infrastructure and maintenance of services to neighborhoods even after their separation according to international law and Israel’s obligations toward its residents.
Under which circumstances would both sides be willing to compromise on Jerusalem?
A compromise on Jerusalem would be made possible only as part of a comprehensive peace agreement that would appeal to both sides enough to make them settle. It is clear that no solution can be made without a division. However, only strong leadership on both sides could make such sacrifices. It is also important to note that without the involvement of the international community, particularly the United States, it would be impossible to move forward.
What can be done until a final status agreement is reached?
If the current situation remains as is and there is no significant progress in the peace talks, it is important to look at temporary alternative ways to manage the city better for the welfare of all of its residents. Seven hundred fifty thousand people live in Jerusalem, of which more than 50 percent live in poverty—statistics that makes the city extremely hard to manage.
De facto, Jerusalem is already divided. There is no real integration between Jews and Arabs. We suggest dividing the city into separate boroughs, Jewish and Arab, all of which would be under Israeli sovereignty until a peace agreement is reached, but with greater autonomy devolved to each borough in the fields of education, infrastructure, culture, etcetera. A part of our plan is to have joint industry, high technology and education projects in mixed and seam neighborhoods.
This should be the pressing task now—to create a viable temporary alternative to the current situation that would make normal life possible for Jerusalem’s residents until we reach a final status agreement. Both sides realize that reaching and implementing an agreement might take a long time. In the meantime, it’s our mutual interest to improve the quality of life for people. It is important though to ensure that any temporary solution would not undermine the chance of reaching a final status agreement on Jerusalem. The international community can help implement a temporary solution with restoration of East Jerusalem neighborhoods, help in improvement of the infrastructure and creation of joint projects in the fields of employment, culture and education.
Following the latest terror attacks, how do you suggest the security challenge in Jerusalem be dealt with?
Jerusalem is the most terrorized city in Israel. This is the underlying reason for the construction of the separation barrier in the city, but the barrier has not been completed yet due to its political implications. The reasons for terrorism in Jerusalem are political but also socio-economic. We cannot entirely prevent terror attacks such as the latest ones we witnessed using bulldozers or the shooting in Mercaz Harav Yeshiva. But we can try to minimize the socio-economic motives by improving the infrastructure and daily lives of Jerusalem’s Palestinians.
