An independent authority should govern Jerusalem in a two-state solution peace plan, according to a panel of analysts at the Center for American Progress yesterday. The Jerusalem Old City Initiative, created over the past few years at the University of Windsor and previously pitched to various government officials and experts, would ensure that both Israel and an independent Palestine claim portions of the holy city as their capital while also providing universal access to religious sites. Panel moderator Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Egypt, stressed the need to determine the status of the holy city in the peace talks. “An outcome in Jerusalem… is going to provide for national and individual security,” he said.
The plan would create a joint Israel-Palestine governance board that would agree on a single administrator for the old city in Jerusalem, compromising approximately 1 square kilometer and 35,000-40,000 residents, according to Initiative co-director and former Canadian Ambassador to various Middle East countries Michael Bell. He asserted the need for the administrator to ensure “dignity, human rights, and equity” for everyone in the old city, including visitors.
Catholic University law professor and program consultant Marshall Breger expressed optimism for the acceptance of the independent administrator by both Israelis and Palestinians. He stressed the importance of recent reports that the Palestinian Authority would consider temporarily relinquishing religious control of the Temple Mount to other entities, such as a Saudi-based organization. “The P.A. is looking for buy in of other Arab countries,” Breger said.
Bell asserted that the plan would consider authentic needs of residents in the old city and delay the need to discuss future sovereignty until a peace process fully stabilizes. He continued to note the importance of at least a temporary solution to the issue of Jerusalem. “Without resolution of that, even if one solved all the issues at hand, peace would not be possible,” Bell said. The city sparks particular fervor amongst religious Jews and Muslims due to the location of the two faiths holy sites, which compromise the same location. “Those two entities are one in the same in fact,” Bell said, stressing the “overlapping sacred spaces.”
According to the plan, Israeli and Palestinian officials would agree on countries suitable for providing security services to the old city. The administrator would then hire a police officers from these countries to serve in the territory. In the event of any public disturbance, Bell noted that both Israel and Palestine would need to show restraint and permit the administrator to effectively manage the situation. Residents would obtain citizenship rights, such as education and law, from their respective countries, not the administrator. Bell also noted that the administrator would not directly provide utilities, but would rather hire private companies for some public services. “A lot of this would have to be worked out,” he said.
The plan seems strikingly idealistic and not realistic, requiring significant changes of behavior from both Israeli and Palestinians officials. Bell stressed the need for leadership willing to compromise and able to unite residents behind the proposal. “A lot depends on leadership… the kind of leadership that is charismatic that can pull people together,” Bell said. He noted that former Israeli Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak and former Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat may have been able to fulfill this role, however they squandered the opportunity. However, Bell mentioned imprisoned, immensely popular Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti as an option.
Further, the panel stressed the complications caused by Israeli settlements towards obtaining an agreement on Jerusalem and a broader peace process. Kurtzer noted the various Israeli settlements surrounding Jerusalem that, if expanded, would threaten “bifurcating the West Bank.” The panel stressed the growing dispute between the Obama Administration and the Israeli government over the need to halt settlement expansion. Kurtzer described the issue as “highly politically sensitive…. and has very often created a political crisis” between the United States and Israel. Breger concurred, noting that“[the peace process is] being eroded by the settler efforts.”
Moreover, the panel unequivocally rejected an argument that, due to the Dome of the Rock’s stature as Islam’s third holiest site, Muslims should not strongly identify with Jerusalem. “It’s not up to me to tell you whether your narrative is relevant or not,” Bell said, noting that the argument “may reinforce” the belief inadvertently. Berger concurred, particularly attacking pro-Israel advocate Daniel Pipes for pushing the argument. “I think that’s a silly argument… you have to accept a religion’s definition of what is holy,” Berger said. “It’s a big problem if people don’t respect the religious narratives of others.”
