Jerusalem as the key to Israeli-Palestinian peace

Understandably, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much of the attention over the last two years has been focused on the unbearable bloodshed and devastation over this period, which is still not entirely over. Nevertheless, to ultimately end this conflict, there is an urgent need to address the deteriorating situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Until the war started, the primary concern had been that it was the volatile situation in Jerusalem that could ignite another round of hostilities between the Israelis and Palestinians. This was made more acute with the constant provocations by the far right in Israel on Al-Haram Al-Sharif and by the continuous expansion of settlements, the displacement of Palestinians and the demolition of their houses.

These developments require us to refocus on Jerusalem, without losing sight of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank, first to defeat the ploy to make it as difficult as possible for Palestinians to live there and even exclude them from the city by changing the city’s boundaries. Instead, we should imagine an alternative vision of a shared capital for both peoples as part of a peace agreement based on a two-state solution.

Despite being engaged in a multifront war over the last two years, the current Israeli government has not stopped its efforts to create irreversible facts on the ground that would compromise the viability of a two-state solution — and, by that, a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.

It is Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who, by his provocative insistence on violating decades-old arrangements at Al-Haram Al-Sharif — the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound where Jews are allowed to visit but not pray — who gets the headlines. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

We should envision a shared capital for both peoples as part of a peace agreement based on a two-state solution

Yossi Mekelberg

To add insult to injury, last month, while leading a small group of his followers to pray there, Ben-Gvir also stated that Israel was “winning” at the compound and claimed Israeli ownership of Temple Mount, as it is known to Jews. Any such irresponsible and deliberately inciting statement coming from a senior minister causes deep concern about whether this reckless government could, in a moment of madness, ignite religious war on the compound. One should hope that some sanity might still prevail in this government or that the international community would prevent any such move.

However, while Ben-Gvir is thriving on collecting social media likes from his base, other developments are changing the East Jerusalem landscape and its demographics. According to the Israeli organization Ir Amim, which monitors the efforts by Israel to marginalize Palestinians in Jerusalem, with far-reaching social and political implications, Israel has intensified matters since the beginning of the Gaza war. It has increased its settlement expansion in the east of the city and recently approved the E1 settlement, which will cut off the West Bank from East Jerusalem and divide the territory into two, in addition to furthering the forced displacement of Palestinians. It is extremely worrying that all these illegal acts by Israel, which violate international law, are facing hardly any pushback from the international community.

A government busy with a multifront war has still found time to plan nine settlements of more than 20,000 housing units in East Jerusalem alone — one is already under construction and three others have been approved. These policies are also becoming increasingly brazen, as they are deliberately targeting land in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods. If, in the past, Jewish-only settlements were built with the objective of encircling Palestinian East Jerusalem, now the aim is also to create friction with the local Palestinian population. This is derived from a sense of Jewish supremacy and backed up by the levers of power the government possesses, whether through the security forces and the bureaucracy or by weaponizing the legal process for this aim.

It is extremely worrying that all these illegal acts by Israel, which violate international law, are facing hardly any pushback

Yossi Mekelberg

Notwithstanding the illegality of the annexation of East Jerusalem, which took place in 1980, Israel has an obligation for the well-being of its citizens, either as the occupying force or, since it annexed the location, because they are residents of a city that is part of Israel. Moreover, the Palestinian residents of the city constitute 40 percent of the population but enjoy only a fraction of the rights their Jewish neighbors enjoy.

On the one hand, there is complete neglect of urban planning in Palestinian neighborhoods, which is then used as a pretext for imposing home demolitions due to the absence of building permits. Up to the end of July, 118 structures had been demolished this year, while last year the figure stood at a record 255. There are also specific neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, such as Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah, that settlement organizations target, using their advantage of access to political power and the legal system to evict Palestinians and to confiscate land. This is all in the name of increasing the Jewish majority in the city on both sides of the border, while “encouraging” Palestinians to leave.

Alternatively, there is the vision of a peace agreement in which Jerusalem is the capital of both Israel and Palestine, but without the need to divide it physically between the two countries. As suggested by some of the proposals for a confederate model of a two-state solution — such as the one by Ir Amim — addressing the issue of Jerusalem, as all other issues, must be based on the principles of self-determination, democracy, equality and human rights, and be agreeable to both sides.

The beauty and holiness of Jerusalem is derived from its diversity; it must be recognized and mobilized as a source of strength, not of division and discord. This requires complete freedom of movement, which means agreed borders between the two independent political entities, but not necessarily hard borders, that would serve to establish peaceful coexistence, economic prosperity and the sharing of public services for the benefit of everyone.

There is no magic wand to wave and instantly defuse decades of enmity. But ensuring freedom of worship in the holy places — possibly even granting special residency for those who live in Jerusalem, without compromising their rights as Israeli or Palestinian citizens, as well as the security arrangements to make it a safe city — could be key to a successful peace deal. In the meantime, Israel must stop taking unilateral steps that compromise the vision of an open city in which everyone enjoys the same rights and that is the personification of reconciliation between the two peoples.