Cart before the horse

Editorial

As official proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians once again began, there were calls from both sides for the “core” or “permanent agreement” issues to be put on the table and discussed. These include borders, refugees and, of course, Jerusalem.

Arguably, the most contentious issue is the holy city, sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians. In an ideal world, some brilliant brain trust would come up with a practical plan that would garner the support of both sides laying claim to the city – Israelis and Palestinians – and lions would lay down with lambs and people everywhere would trade their swords in for the sheet music to “Kumbaya.”

But we don’t live in such a fantasy world, which is why we continually have to settle for pap, it seems. The latest report to add to the trash heap of failed dreams is called The Jerusalem Old City Initiative, which was formally unveiled in Washington, D.C., recently.

Unbelievably, it is the product of seven years of research by a group of nearly 40 Israeli, Palestinian, American and Canadian diplomats, academics and policy wonks. Funded by Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Canadian International Development Agency, International Development Research Centre, Centre for International Governance Innovation, Woodrow Wilson School for Public and International Affairs: Princeton University, Search for Common Ground and the University of Windsor, the Canadian-led team has created a “what-if, best-case” scenario for final status negotiations on the Old City of Jerusalem, supposedly solving the problem of what to do with Jerusalem when – and if – peace ever descends on the region.

Working groups were formed to investigate three main areas – security, governance and holy sites – with a mission to “develop creative options for the governance and management of the Old City of Jerusalem in preparation for a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Described by its authors as an “exercise in creative political imagination,” the first and major (non-creative) recommendation is the establishment of an Israel-Palestinian “special regime,” presided over by an international administrator. The researchers do not believe in an Old City “geographically divided between Israel and Palestine to be sustainable; indeed, we are concerned that it would threaten the viability of any comprehensive peace, given the mosaic of holy sites within it, their intense symbolism and the potential for confrontation over them. Our view has been that the wounds of war do not permit a divided Old City, particularly when sacred space therein is indivisible.”

The report also notes, “Jerusalem, particularly the Old City, is a microcosm of the greater struggle. Conceptual progress on how, within a two-state solution, Israelis and Palestinians can live in their respective capitals of Yerushalayim and Al-Quds, with workable and sustainable arrangements for the Old City and the holy sites, could demonstrate the level of mutual compromise, acceptance and confidence essential for a broader peace.”

“Our special regime is embedded in and grows out of an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty that establishes a Palestinian state,” Michael Molloy, chair of the governance working group, told reporters. “It cannot be imposed. It must be the creation of the two sides with a little help from their friends.”

Ghaith Al-Omari of the American Task Force on Palestine, who was a negotiator at Camp David in 2000, said the proposal is only to be used after a peace deal is secured. “The way the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations work, this issue will not be touched until the leaders come in and decide on sovereignty and then we are going to have, you know, a week for the negotiators to come in and actually put the practical issues on the table,” Al-Omari told reporters. “And that is when this kind of initiative becomes extremely valuable.”

So, for now then, this initiative is pretty darn useless. Since the report begins at the end, when Israelis and Palestinians are already at peace, it doesn’t offer any guidance on how to reach that crucial point. It merely notes that the researchers “feel certain that attitudes can be changed, if an imaginative process is introduced, based on respect for dignity and equity.” Fair enough, but this report completely bypasses the “process” part and goes straight to the conclusion. Way to skip to the easy stuff. It’s too bad that the researchers couldn’t derive from their years of study at least a tidbit of imaginative advice on how to get from point A to Z.

While starting with reality may not have proven very effective to date, in decades of negotiations, it’s hard to see how ignoring reality will help. Even for city folk like us at the Jewish Independent, it’s obvious that putting the cart before the horse is not the way to progress. What’s needed are concrete, pragmatic and directly negotiated solutions between Israel and the Palestinians. There is no easy road to peace – or to Jerusalem.

^TOP