“The problem of Jerusalem is one of the most emotional and explosive issues in the world,” wrote Palestinian international jurist Henry Cattan in 1981. In the same year, prominent Israeli novelist and commentator “Aleph Bet” Yehoshua noted that “in a period of violent religious renaissance [Jerusalem] is a dangerous political explosive which could give rise to an uncontrollable conflagration.” Fourteen years later, Palestinian scholar Ghada Karmi commented that “nothing in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been so contentious as the issue of Jerusalem.” And in 1999 the Israeli negotiator of the Oslo Agreements, Uri Savir, told me, “The issue of Jerusalem . . . can easily become a public explosion . . . not just between Palestinians and Israelis, but between the Arab world and Israel, between the Islamic world and the Jewish world.” Explosive, contentious, capable of drawing in much of the world community—this is the pervasive nature of the problem. Illustrating this point, in 1999 two of the foremost actors in the Oslo peace process commented on Jerusalem as a final-settlement issue. The Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council at the time, Ahmad Quray‘ (also known as Abu Ala’), explained that Jerusalem . . . is the head, the heart of the Palestinian state—the heart of the Palestinian identity. Without Jerusalem, I don’t think peace will be achieved. Therefore, this is the most important element of the peace process. At the same time the then Speaker of the Knesset, Shimon Peres, said: Jerusalem may be the only issue on the Israeli position which escapes strategy and politics. This is the only place that has the aura of holiness. And the difference between politics and holiness is that when holiness begins, compromise stops. Both statements reflect the language and underlying strength of identity and ideology as a nexus and invite consideration of the dynamic that seems to bring either stasis or momentum over the Jerusalem Question. | 
