Jerusalem's Final Status: Other Critical Dimensions To The Jerusalem Question

Over the decades, Jewish intellectuals in the US have framed the Palestinian tragedy in reductionist terms using elemental arguments such as fighting terrorism and security for Israel versus Palestinians' human and property rights. A settlement ignoring the complexity of the Jerusalem question with its Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic aspects is bound to fail. Europe, due to its colonial heritage, has traditionally maintained a keener understanding of the Mediterranean's historical dynamics. But many opinion leaders and policy makers in the US do not grasp the full dimensions of the conflict over Jerusalem and the baseline solution yet.

With the pro-Israeli US pressure groups coalescing to pave the way for a settlement favorable to Israel, the need to establish a single-issue Arab and Muslim bloc is at its greatest today. The short time frame and the unfavorable conditions for a final status negotiations should leave little doubt for the need to promote a clear pro-Jerusalem agenda strictly along UN resolutions to avoid political confusion from the outset. Any revisionist interpretation of UN resolutions which does not return East Jerusalem to its 1967 borders should be rejected.

Presently, Israel is aiming to introduce a series of neutered Jerusalem options ranging form designating alternative sites such as Abu Deis as East Jerusalem or other imaginative but still unacceptable alternatives such as token authority over Muslim and some Christian Holy Sites in the Holy City. While Israel and the US may pressure PNA Chairman Arafat into such an arrangement, it will be a short-lived deal as demonstrated by Israel's own de facto breach of signed agreements they later deemed counter to their interests. Such a coerced arrangement is a recipe for disaster bound to collapse if and when Arafat departs. Or possibly sooner.

Not too many Palestinians, let alone most Arabs and Muslims, would endorse reconciliation with Israel when Palestinian authority over East Jerusalem is not secured. To the contrary, Palestinian and Muslim disillusionment will definitely lead into further mistrust and instability. And Jerusalem will remain a festering sore with unpredictable outcomes. In this environment, proponents of absolute solutions would undoubtedly win converts resulting in strengthening the rejectionists camp. And Arafat's regime and those who support it will be accorded the credibility and respect befitting of a Palestinian Vichy.

A LOCAL CONFLICT WITH GLOBAL ROOTS

Jerusalem to Arabs and Muslims is greater than the sum of its parts. It is not about Palestinians and Israelis. It is not about Arabs and Zionists or Jews and Muslims. Jerusalem is viewed by Arabs and Muslims as the focus of a historical tug of war by which the West has sought to gain influence and in the process have inflicted serious violence on the indigenous population in specific and desecrated what is deeply sacred to Arabs and Muslims in general. Jerusalem is like no other place for Arabs both Muslims and Christians, and Muslims of all ethnic backgrounds.

The legal, religious, geopolitical, historical, and moral basis demanding a shared Jerusalem with Palestinian authority over East Jerusalem are well known and the solution widely accepted in international foreign policy circles. Regardless of the recent Israeli spins as to the pre-1967 status of Jerusalem, it is today an occupied territory. No ifs or buts about it. UN resolutions leave even less doubt as to the legal status of East Jerusalem.

Many Palestinians consider the religious and geopolitical significance of Palestine to have been both curse and bliss. Had Muslims and Christians not accorded Palestine with a measure of sacredness, chances are Palestinians would have been marginalized. Also, Israel's geography has been burdened by its wedge-like presence lodged at the heart of the Arab World. The symbolism behind the Israeli enforced Arab division has been deemed too painful and too humiliating to accept. And Jerusalem being at the heart of Palestine and the Arab World, has been endowed by Arab nationalists of all faiths with greater measures of reverence not accorded to other Arab cities. Similar factors made Palestine an attractive but troublesome homeland for the Jews.

When analyzing the Arab and Muslim popular discourse on Jerusalem and the historical psychology surrounding its loss, it conjures up images of waves of violence coming from the West in the form of the Crusaders. Arabs both Muslims and Christians have suffered immensely from the European's violent campaign of racial and cultural dominance under religious pretexts. After World War II, the loss of Jerusalem became a symbol of Western Colonialism and Imperialism leading to the demise of the last Islamic Empire. Presently, the American Christian Right's steadfast support for total Israeli control over Jerusalem and the Occupied Territories against the entreats of Christian Arabs is a disturbing remainder of the West's historic and constantly repeating role in this conflict.

To contemporary Arab and Muslim intellectuals, the establishment of Israel highlights Western cynicism. After violently persecuting its Jews, Europe managed to rid itself of its Orientals. With another cynical move, Europe sponsored a settlement to the Jewish Question at the expense of the Palestinians and returned later to arbitrate the same conflict they have created and made a handsome profit selling weapons to the warring parties in the process. The permanent loss of Jerusalem would be considered by Arabs and Muslims as the West's most racist crowning achievement and would deepen wounds that have begun to heal in the aftermath of World War II and the ensuing wars of liberation.

And if Jerusalem to the Jews is the symbol of return and an end to their exodus, to Arabs and Muslims, it is the focus of unconscionable Western-sponsored racial violence against its indigenous population. The element of injustice is too great to ignore. And the Western instigated violence and ensuing double-standards were too grotesque to fathom and accept. The resulting discontent gave birth to an increasing acceptance of militancy amongst Palestinians who were traditionally docile agrarian people. This rising militancy has been and continues to be a reaction to Jewish militancy and intransigence.

Given the complexity of the Jerusalem question, the only solution the Arab and Muslim seem prepared for as the absolute minimum will be along the lines of 1967 borders and supporting UN resolutions. In its absence, a no deal leaves room for future negations. A bad deal will widen the divide and could prove costly to both sides potentially expanding the scope of the conflict. Only the sharing of Jerusalem is a good solution. A fair settlement would strengthen the forces of peace and result in the eventual removal of the last vestige of centuries long conflict between East and West.