Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

New Solution for the Old City?

As the anniversary of the "reunification" of Jerusalem is observed this week, marking Israel's annexation of the eastern portion of the city, a new initiative has been announced in Washington that calls for a sustainable and unified solution for governing the “Old City.”

Inter Press Service

As the 43rd anniversary of the “reunification” of Jerusalem is observed this week in Israel, marking Israel’s annexation of the eastern portion of the city, a new initiative that calls for a sustainable and unified solution for the historic city is generating a buzz in Washington.

Proposed by a group of academics, former Canadian ambassadors and government officials, the Jerusalem Old City Initiative calls for a practical, sustainable solution to the governance of Jerusalem’s ancient epicentre.

Jerusalem, and its status in any final peace agreement, is one of the fundamental issues that stands at the seemingly intractable centre of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and it has become fundamental to the debate in recent years.

Recognising both the centrality and the emotionally charged challenges of the Jerusalem issue, this proposal is the result of seven years of careful research, collaboration and discussion with many of the stakeholders in the peace process. It made its Washington debut last week at an event hosted by the Washington-based think tank, the Middle East Institute.

The Old City Initiative is unique in that it meticulously addresses and outlines not just a theoretical solution to governance of Jerusalem, but the actual implementation and sustainability of the proposed plan.

By acknowledging that their plan addresses only one, though integral, component in the complex conflict, the initiative’s authors also imagine how it fits into the larger peace process.

As Israeli attorney Daniel Seideman said at the Washington event, this initiative won’t solve the decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, but it could “radically transform the conflict”. Seideman lives in Jerusalem and is the founder and director of Terrestrial Jerusalem, an Israeli NGO.

The cornerstone of the proposal is a “special regime” that would have autonomous control of the ancient walled city that encompasses some of the world’s most revered religious sites.

Unlike previous proposals, like the 2000 Clinton Parameters or the often-heralded 2003 Geneva Accords that provided complex formulas for dividing Jerusalem, this proposal offers a mechanism for keeping the core of the city unified, and governed separately from neighbourhoods that radiate outward and are usually demarcated as either Israeli or Palestinian.

“With overlapping claims, systemic distrust, multiple stakeholders, deep religious divides and the impracticability of physical division, we believe options splitting Old City governance are problematic,” the report explains.

The mechanism for unified governance that is proposed is two-tiered. A chief administrator would lead the day-to-day operation of the Old City and would be an “experienced and internationally respected individual who is neither Israeli nor Palestinian”.

The second tier of the regime would be a governance board that would appoint the chief administrator and to which the administrator would be accountable. The Old City board would be made up of senior representatives of both Israeli and Palestinian governments, as well as representatives of other countries as defined by the two parties.

The Initiative, largely funded by the Canadian government, has been working quietly on the margins of the debate over a Middle East peace plan for almost a decade. However, the latest proposal, and last week’s event in Washington, could not have been more timely or central to the current state of the conflict.

The proposal debuted in the same week that saw the start of U.S.-brokered indirect, or proximity, talks between the Israeli and Palestinian governments.

The talks would end an 18-month standoff in negotiations between the two parties. They are as the president of Middle East Institute, Wendy Chamberlain, told a large audience last week, “not the direct talks that we all hoped for”. She did concede that they represent a significant step forward though, as, “Special envoy Mitchell will be dealing with parties who are still very far apart.”

One of the most significant signs of the chasm that separates the two parties, currently using Special Envoy George Mitchell as a messenger between Jerusalem and Ramallah, is conditions in Jerusalem.

The situation is “careening out of control in Jerusalem”, said former U.S. ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer at the Washington event last week.

“It is not accidental that every altercation between the [Barack] Obama administration and Netanyahu has been over the Jerusalem issue,” Kurtzer told the audience in an opulent hotel ballroom. “The conflict is being reduced to its volcanic core, this is the arena of choice for all spoilers.”

This week has already seen such spoilers elbow their way back into the debate. Thursday, Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced that Israel would never stop construction in East Jerusalem, the section of the city that Palestinians want for the capital of their hoped-for future state.

The building of Israeli-only housing in East Jerusalem has been the underlying cause of continued friction between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s government, and resulted in months of delay in restarting indirect talks.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had demanded a total freeze on settlement building in the West Bank before he would return to negotiations.

Though Israel has declared no such freeze on building, Abbas has backed away from his demands, in part because of guarantees by the U.S. administration that final status issues like Jerusalem would be a part of negotiations. Additionally, no new building has taken place in East Jerusalem since U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden’s visit to the city in March.

However, the proposal offered by the Jerusalem Old City Initiative doesn’t directly take on issues like the building of Israeli settlements in the eastern suburbs of the city. It focuses its sights solely on the historic centre of Jerusalem, ignoring the other volatile issues that lie at the heart of the dispute, like the Gaza Strip, the role of Hamas, and land swaps.

Yet its single-minded focus might also be this proposal’s strength. With the idea of a “special regime”, the authors of the Initiative allow that agreement on Jerusalem’s sovereignty is not likely in the foreseeable future, yet a sustainable solution to the governance of the Old City is integral to peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

It represents a building block in a peace process that is once again trying to establish a foundation.

Ellen Massey writes for the Inter Press Service and is a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). 

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share