U.S. efforts to bolster the peace process have traditionally considered the status of Jerusalem as one of the final pieces of the puzzle. Critics of this approach point out that the holy city’s status remains a critical controversial aspect of negotiations that would risk negating any previous compromises obtained in negotiations.
Even though Israel agreed to a settlement freeze, the halt in activity does not affect development in East Jerusalem. Critics of construction in East Jerusalem condemn Israel for attempting to “Judiaze” East Jerusalem and effectively fortify the city to prevent an eventual splitting of the city in a two-state solution. The State Department has also criticized Israel for construction, particularly in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood.
I’ve written extensively on Jerusalem, but Palestinian journalist Daoud Kutab describes the integral nature of the city in peace talks, stressing that they are just that- peaceful negotiations where there is no room for violence from either side. In his latest piece for bitterlemons, he writes:
“Whether their hard work bears any fruit depends on the political will to find non-violent solutions to the conflict. Because whether it is borders, Jerusalem, the right of return, settlements or security arrangements, all parties to the conflict must know that there are no military or violent solutions. Non-violent solutions require empathy and sympathy as well as justice and fairness. If we have learned anything in this past bloody decade in Palestine and Israel, it is that violence only begets violence.”