Issues in Jerusalem - Essay Example

s Issues in Jerusalem The issue of Jerusalem is about Israeli Jews and the Palestinians. The two groups have been a center for peace negotiations for a long time and no solution seem forthcoming (Bishara 16) Palestinians and Israeli-Jews have a strong attachment to Jerusalem for religious and cultural significance and none of them is ready to surrender Jerusalem to the other. The two groups have claims over the control of most parts of Jerusalem (Mahler 267). The efforts of international communities to establish peace over the two communities have been unsuccessful for a long time. Both communities have raised demands that have to be met by the other community in order to have peace. The options for the two communities to establish a lasting peace are for each community to compromise some of their demands if the two communities have to come into a peaceful agreement (Mayer & Mourad 291). The failure of various negotiations or peace has led to the conclusion that the two communities are making rigid demands thus they cannot concede any compromise. The two groups have engaged in conflicts that have resulted to deaths of many people and bitterness against each other that has killed any hope of peaceful agreement (Mahler 272). However, there is a fresh development that the two groups can make some compromises both political and religious to establish a lasting solution. The study gives an analysis of the possible approaches for establishing peace in Jerusalem. The most contested holy sites include Temple Mount by the Jews and al-Sharif by the Palestinians (Bishara 19). The Jews believe that the Temple Mount is the oldest temple, and below it there is Western and Wailing Wall. The Temple Mount has a religious significance to the Jews because they believe it is the place where Jews shall be liberated when Messiah arrives (Mahler 278). Therefore, to Jews, Giving surrendering the temple is tantamount to surrendering their deliverance. Furthermore, the Temple Mount is a national symbol to the secular Jews. The Palestinian Muslim refers the same region as Haram al-Sharif (the noble Sanctuary) (Segal et.al 26). It contains the third holiest Muslim sites which are the al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock (Mayer & Mourad 296). The Muslims believe that prophet Mohamed was taken by a winged horse from Makkah to Jerusalem and then ascended to heaven from that point (Segal et.al 29). The ascension of Mohamed was of great significance to Muslim because God taught Him when and how to pray thus forming the five pillars of Muslim. Haram al-Sharif has both political and religious consequences to the Palestinians and the Muslims (Mahler 279). The Palestinians have great interest in East Jerusalem as their future state. The claim of importance attached to Jerusalem by different communities establishes a slim chance for successful negotiation between the warring communities (Mahler 282). The majority of the Israeli Jews have strong attachments to the “Jewish Religious sites and the Jewish Neighborhoods in the Old City” and with the rest of the city. On the other hand, only a few of the Israeli Jews claims the importance on the “non-Jewish quarters of the Old City, the Arab Village areas or he Arab downtown area” (Bishara 23). When Jerusalem is broken down into neighborhoods it becomes apparent that different individuals claim importance on different neighborhoods and the importance is not uniform on the entire Jerusalem. Different groups of Israeli Jews have different priorities on the regions regarded as very important and those considered unimportant part of Jerusalem (Mayer & Mourad 298). Therefore, the prioritizing of various regions of Jerusalem in terms of their importance to the Israeli Jews signifies the availability of opportunity for negotiation of peace on the issue of Jerusalem since Israeli Jews have a higher probability of surrendering the less important parts of Jerusalem to Palestinians. On the other hand, Palestinians do consider some parts of Jerusalem as having great significance to their community while other parts are of less significance. For example, majority of the Palestinians consider the Muslim and Christian holy sites, the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhoods and the Arab quarters of the Old City as the most important to them (Segal et.al 34). The Palestinians consider the West Jerusalem, settlements and all other neighborhoods where Jews lives to be of less significance in Jerusalem (Hansel 79). Therefore, the fact that Palestinians do not have uniform attachments on the entire Jerusalem implies there is a room for peace negotiation process with hope that the two sides are likely to compromise some parts of Jerusalem to the other community. Although both communities consider Jerusalem as an important place to them, they have expressed greater concern on some regions than others (Bishara 33). However, the two communities have expressed strong interest on similar parts. For example, both Israeli Jews and the Palestinians have a strong attachment to the "Mount of Olives, the Old City and the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount." Nevertheless, even in the Old City there are specific areas of priorities (Segal et.al 38). Some areas are such as “Jewish quarters of the Old City, West Jerusalem and the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem” are of great significance to the Israeli Jews and of low significance to the Palestinians (Mayer & Mourad 299). Consequently, there are areas of great significance to the Palestinians and are of low significance to the Israeli Jews (Hansel 57). For example, the Arab Villages, the Arab quarters of the Old City and the Arab downtown area. Therefore, in the ongoing negotiation there is a possibility to rename the Arab quarters of the Old City, the Arab downtown area and the Arab Villages as Al-Quds and put it under Palestinian dominion while the Jewish quarters of the Old City, the new Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and the West Jerusalem is likely to be named Yerushalyim and pace it under the Israeli sovereignty (Mayer & Mourad 301). The demand present by each group leaves a very thin margin for negotiation between the two communities (Segal et.al 45). However, there is a chance for negotiation between the communities since the two communities are likely to compromise only a small per cent of their demands. The disputes about Jerusalem can be settled through a “healthy peace process including reconciliation and people-to-people relations (Segal et.al 49).” The solution of the disputes between Palestinians and Israeli-Jews can be attained through settlement of the conflicts in Jerusalem. Seventy percent of the Palestinians support the establishment of lasting peace although it may not be based on full justice. In a study conducted in fine details on dispute solutions on the possibility for peace negotiations in Jerusalem, the Israeli Jews depicted negative attitude towards such discussion although they were much willing to compromise some demands (Bishara 38). However, they fear engaging in negotiations due to the unexpected out outcome since it may turn out that the compromises to be made are beyond the requirements of a specific outcome. For example, the Israeli Jews are unwilling to surrender the East Jerusalem as Palestinian Capital while in the peace negotiation processes the Palestinians will obviously raise the demand for the state (Caplan 139). However, the Israeli Jews are willing to negotiate with Palestinians on the Palestinians liberty over East Jerusalem and later the independent state of Palestinians can establish the capital in the place of their choice. Another issue of concern in the ongoing peace negotiation is the mythical claim by the Israeli Jews about the Jerusalem boundaries that are regarded as “sacred lines” and some of the Israeli Jews have claimed that once anything crosses inside their boundaries it becomes sacred thus cannot be reclaimed (Barnett 161). However, the researchers have established that most of the Israeli Jews are not aware of the precise borderlines of Jerusalem. They also discovered that in June 1967 when the Jerusalem boundary was setup the city became reunited and some parts such as West Bank were integrated into Jerusalem (Segal et.al 54). The issue of redefining the boundaries to specify the Jewish community in terms of boundaries received an objection from just a small section of the Jews while majority of the Jews believed that there is no problem with reestablishment of the boundaries. Therefore, there is an implication that Israeli Jews perceives the boundaries as more of policy issue than a sacred and unchangeable. With such perception, there is room for negotiation to establish peaceful coexistence between the Palestinians and the Israelites by reestablishing the boundaries (Mahler 269). On the same issue of boundaries, most of the Palestinians have no intention of reclaiming the West bank from Jerusalem. Off course reclaiming of West Bank from Jerusalem would reduce part of East Jerusalem by about ninety percent and Israelites would be so much opposed to such decision (Caplan 147). Similarly, majority of the Palestinians have no intentions of changing the boundaries for democratic goals of accommodating more Palestinians into Jerusalem. The majority of Palestinians believed that the Jerusalem borders should be expanded to incorporate the villages of Abu Dis and Azzariyya (Segal et.al 63). Therefore, the Palestinians perception of boundaries is a policy instrument thus it is possible to reestablish the boundaries. There is a chance for establishing peaceful negotiation between the Palestinians and the Jews through redesigning of the Jerusalem borders. The most contentious issue was over Jerusalem with each of the two communities claiming the sovereignty of the sacred places in Jerusalem (Bishara 41). There are various options available for the two communities in establishing peace. One of the options is to give Israeli full control over the sacred sites in Jerusalem (Segal et.al 69). The Israeli leaders have always echoed that Jerusalem “eternal and undivided religious and political capital” and no other community can have control over Jerusalem (Barnett 163). Having Israeli in full control of Jerusalem and all sacred parts would be a solution to the Israeli, but it would be unfortunate because the Palestinians and the rest of the Muslim communities would not support such a decision. The second option would be the establishment of twin capital for each of the two groups. The suggestion of establishing a twin capital was put across by the Prime Minister Ehud Barak (Caplan 156). His suggestion was the establishment of twin capitals adjacent each other with Al-quds serving the Palestinians while the Israeli would continue using Jerusalem as their capital city (Mahler 275). However, this suggestion would only be a partial solution since the sacred parts would not be equally shared among the two groups. For example, The Temple Mount would not fall under the Al-Quds thus the Palestinians would lose its control. The Jewish leaders would not allow the transfer of Temple Mount to the Palestinians by any means (Barnett 168). The other option for the establishment of peace is to have shared autonomy between Israeli and Palestine (Segal et.al 71). The approach would involve sharing of control over Jerusalem and the sacred places between Palestinians and the Israeli Jews. Palestinians have a claim over the “East Jerusalem and the Arab part of the city” which they claim were alienated by the Israel under international law since 1967 (Segal et.al 74). However, it is unlikely that such as deal can succeed because Israeli cannot agree to part with East Jerusalem. The final suggestion has been a proposal for “God’s’ Sovereignty.” The study has established some people believe Jerusalem and the sacred parts of Jerusalem should be subject to control of God’s’ (Caplan 168). Various religious groups have expressed their interest on the sovereignty of the sacred parts and those groups are monotheistic. Therefore, under divine sovereignty the Palestinians and Israel will not have control over the sacred parts due to their importance. Instead of having single group control the sacred places, Christian, Jews and Muslim leaders will have a joint administration of the sacred parts for the interest of all religious groups (Barnett 176). That would appear to be a better solution, but only if the two conflicting groups would agree to have such an uniform control. In 1948, the United Nations had established resolution to set Jerusalem as special international city under the control of the UN. The Palestinians and Israeli Jews communities have to make some compromises both politically and religious in order to establish a lasting solution for peace (Barnett 179). The claims presented by the two communities over Jerusalem depicts each of the two groups have a right over Jerusalem and a fair solution can be established if the two groups take some compromises (Segal et.al 79). The process has to begin by examining the rights of each group and establish the compromises that can be made by each side. In conclusion, the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians over Jerusalem is not likely to end in the near future. Despite several peaceful negotiations focused at establishing peace between the two communities, the conflict has continued to intensify with each community tightening its grip on the claim over what they perceive to belong to them. The most contentious places include the Temple Mount and the Old Cities whose ownership is under the claim of both the Palestinians and Israeli Jews. The fact that each of the two groups is claiming for absolute sovereignty over such places has thwarted the effort of establishing peaceful deal. Another issue is the control over sacred places that have led to the suggestion of establishing joint control over all sacred parts. The success of any negotiation deal over Jerusalem depends entirely on the extent of compromise to which each of the parties is willing to make. However, there is hope for negotiation between the two groups although the margin is very thin. Works Cited Barnett, Michael. “Israel in Comparative Perspective: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom.”United States of America: SUNY Press, (2012): 159-183 Bishara, Marwan. “Palestine/Israel: peace or apartheid: prospects for resolving the conflict.” Zed Books, (2001): 14-68. Caplan, Neil. “The Israel-Palestine Conflict: Contested Histories.” John Wiley & Sons, 92011): 134-185 Hansel, Joelle. “Levinas in Jerusalem: Phenomenology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics: Phenomenology, Ethics, Politics, Aesthetics. Springer, (2008). 4-27. Israeli, Raphael. “Jerusalem Divided: The Armistice Regime, 1947-1967.” Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, Great Britain, 2002): 51-84. Mahler, Gregory, S. “Politics and Government in Israel: The Maturation of a Modern State.”UK: Rowman & Littlefield, (2011): 266-298. Mayer, Tamar & Mourad, Suleiman, A. “Jerusalem: Idea and Reality.” USA: Routledge, (2008): 289-306. Segal, Jerome M., Katz, Elihu., Levy, Shlomit. & Said, Nadar I. “Negotiating Jerusalem.” United States of America: States University of New York, (2012): 20-87. Read More