 Economic issues, security considerations and legal concerns all remain unconvincing alternatives in the search for an explanation for Israeli and Palestinian intransigence over the Jerusalem Question (I’ll explain why in detail next time).
Consideration of the cumulative effect of these alternative explanations does not appear warranted either. While there may be a case for Israeli reluctance to negotiate because of security concerns—especially, for example, when there is an increase in suicide attacks focused on Jerusalem—and for Palestinian refusal to negotiate because of military and economic oppression, security issues do not explain the longevity of the Arab-Israeli impasse. After all, there have been many periods when security concerns have not been so evident. A more convincing explanation must lie elsewhere. Indeed, four authorities on the Jerusalem Question concede as much. Arguing for contextualization of legal issues within the broader history of the conflict, law professor Ruth Lapidoth told me: As far as I know, neither economic nor strategic questions are important in the case of Jerusalem.
What is important is the symbolic value of Jerusalem. It is a symbol for many people, and it has strong religious aspects. Historian Bernard Wasserstein, commenting on resolution of the Jerusalem Question and its centrality to settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, said: It is not primarily a security issue, it is not primarily an issue other than one of symbols, and the symbolic issue, like most symbolic issues, is one that is even more difficult to solve than some of the other issues.
Oslo Accords negotiator, Uri Savir, having already dismissed legal considerations as a fruitful way forward, summarized the possibility of alternative explanations as follows: I don’t think it is economics. [And] security with the Palestinians is a function of the quality of relations. There will be two states, and these two states need to cooperate on security. . . . We need to prevent an Arab army west of the Jordan River. But by and large, it is not that much of a territorial issue. Jerusalem has its importance mainly as an identity issue, a religious issue, an issue that is really related to our very being.
Savir’s counterpart, Ahmad Quray‘ told me that there are many aspects of the Jerusalem Question that can be successfully negotiated, but there is one that cannot be: sovereignty. Significantly, Quray‘ ties sovereignty to issues of ideology and identity and emphasizes that negotiators must give attention to this matter if a solution is to be found: The nonnegotiable issue in the conflict over Jerusalem is sovereignty. Sovereignty is not negotiable. Modalities can be negotiated: what kind of security, how to reach the religious places, transportation, taxes—even municipal wards can be negotiated. But the matter of sovereignty is nonnegotiable. We have an ideological solution for that: When I, as a Palestinian, take my car and can go all over Jerusalem—East and West—and feel that it is my city, and the Israeli can take his car and go wherever—East and West—and feel it is his city, and you come from Europe, the United States or any other place and feel that there is a special status to this city and that you are at home—I think then we can have a permanent solution to Jerusalem. Otherwise it will be a time bomb. It can be quiet today, but nobody can guarantee that after some days or some years it will remain that way. This is what the negotiators and the decision makers should take into consideration if they want to find a real solution.
Image: Flickr Seth Frantz
| 
