Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Rivals for holy city may have to turn to God

This article is more than 23 years old
A plan to remove the disputed sovereignty of Jerusalem from mere mortals could overcome the biggest hurdle to peace in the Middle East

Special report: Israel and the Middle East

Today it is the turn of King Abdullah of Jordan to meet Yasser Arafat. Yesterday it was President Mubarak of Egypt's. In the seemingly endless round of meetings, the only thing everyone agrees on is that Jerusalem has become the main stumbling block in the Middle East peace process.

Jerusalem is a mediator's nightmare and, at first sight, totally intractable. The Israelis claim it as their "eternal, undivided capital". The Palestinians regard it as their capital too and claim sovereignty over the eastern part which Israel took by force in 1967.

Both sides have nailed their colours so firmly to the mast that to accept anything less would be courting political disaster.

Given these mutually incompatible demands, it is surprising how many people now believe that the city's future can be settled peacefully by negotiation. Following the collapse of the Camp David talks last month, efforts to find a solution, far from fizzling out, have intensified.

Sovereignty is the problem, and may also be the key to a solution. Sovereignty brings ultimate ownership. Nobody doubts its psychological importance, but sovereignty is rarely absolute: in an inter-dependent world sovereign states are not totally free to behave as they wish within their own borders.

This is the area of manoeuvre that negotiators have been trying to exploit. President Bill Clinton's plan at Camp David attempted to satisfy Israeli demands for an undivided capital by giving sovereignty to Israel, while allowing the Palestinians "control" or "autonomy" in some areas.

It envisaged full Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem, while East Jerusalem, occupied by the Israelis since 1967, would be divided into autonomous boroughs but still under Israeli sovereignty.

The boundaries of Jerusalem would also be redrawn. The effect of this would be to give the Palestinians sovereignty over some parts of East Jerusalem - Shu'afat, Beit Hanina and part of Qalandia camp - by transferring them from the city to the West Bank, where they would be incorporated in a Palestinian state.

At the same time, some Israeli West Bank settlements, such as Givat Ze'ev and Ma'ale Adumim, would be incorporated into Jerusalem.

The demand of both sides to have Jerusalem as their capital was addressed by proposing to establish a Palestinian capital outside, but close to, the city boundary, probably at Abu Dis. This would be known as "al-Quds" - the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

The plan also envisaged a special regime for the walled Old City, occupied by the Israelis in 1967. It would be under overall Israeli sovereignty but with Palestinian control over the Muslim and Christian quarters, with Israel having control over the Jewish and Armenian quarters (much to the Armenians' annoyance).

Within the Old City, Palestinians would have unrestricted access to the area known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as al-Haram al-Sharif, and a bridge or tunnel might be constructed for this purpose. Jews would also be allowed the right to pray on the Temple Mount, possibly in a designated section.

Although this was presented as Clinton's bridging proposal at Camp David, there was nothing particularly new or American about it. Most of the ideas had been around since at least 1995, and the plan was very similar to one proposed by the Israelis in Stockholm last May.

The plan was clearly intended to help Ehud Barak through his domestic political difficulties and it is easy to see how he might have sold the package to the Israeli public: Israeli sovereignty would keep the city undivided; the boundary changes would tilt the demographic balance heavily in Israel's favour by introducing more Jews and excluding many Palestinians; religious Jews would get the right to pray on the site of the Temple.

On the other hand, it is difficult to see how Mr Arafat could have persuaded the Palestinians, or the Arab-Islamic world in general, that it was anything less than capitulation.

Describing the plan as "virtual sovereignty" and allowing Palestinian flags to fly in symbolic places could not disguise the fact that Israel would have ultimate authority.

In relation to East Jerusalem, the Old City (where less than 10% of the inhabitants are Jewish) and particularly the Haram (the third holiest site in Islam), the vast majority of Arabs regard Israeli sovereignty as unjustified.

The degree of the control to be conceded by Israel has aroused suspicion. During the Stockholm talks, the plan for Arab boroughs granted most aspects of civil control to the Palestinians but excluded planning and housing - an area where Israelis have acted aggressively in the past to create facts on the ground.

The proposal to allow Jews to pray in the Haram/Temple Mount area also caused alarm. The ancient Temple is believed to lie beneath the Islamic shrines but, up to now, the Israeli authorities have forbidden Jews to pray there, for fear that clashes would break out or that Jewish extremists might try to blow up the mosque or turn it into a synagogue.

Although, in the eyes of Arabs, the Camp David plan was heavily weighted in Israel's favour, it did illustrate the scope for creative approaches.

Since Camp David, attention has focused on the Old City, which covers an area of less than one square mile but carries the emotional burden of three turbulent millennia.

Unlike the rest of the city, its future is not primarily an Israeli-Palestinian issue. There are wider Jewish, Muslim, and Christian interests at stake. Under the 1994 Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty, King Abdullah also has a legal role in looking after the Muslim shrines.

Jordan and Egypt - the two Arab countries which have formally made peace with Israel - are playing a central role in the ongoing discussions.

Last week King Abdullah told Mr Barak of his "rejection of Israeli sovereignty over holy shrines in Jerusalem, which is considered as part of Arab lands occupied [in 1967]". Egyptian officials take a similar firm line over the Haram/Temple Mount area, saying there is "no way sovereignty over this area could be a joint one".

However, both countries have avoided committing themselves to an alternative solution, in order to facilitate discussions.

One proposal is to internationalise the Old City - something originally mooted by the 1947 UN partition plan. President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia urged this on Mr Arafat last week, suggesting that sovereignty be put in the hands of six neighbouring countries (including Israel and Palestine), together with the UN. But there seems to be little enthusiasm for the idea.

Another proposal, from the Roman Catholic Patriarch, Michel Sabbah, is to hand over sovereignty to God. Although this initially caused some amusement, it has the advantage that religious elements on both sides find it difficult to reject, while secular elements see it as a possible way to sidestep the rival political claims.

Jordan has not publicly endorsed the idea but some senior officials are enthusiastic about its possibilities. An Egyptian diplomat also said that it might be worth exploring. The Egyptians are working with the Palestinians on a draft proposal which is said to include a concept called "spiritual sovereignty".

So far, nobody is sure how this would operate in practice, or who would represent God on earth. But a Jordanian official was confident that a way could be found if people wanted to make it work.

Additional reporting by Khaled Dawoud in Cairo

Most viewed

Most viewed