 |
| Jerusalem looking East |
At the center of the Arab Israeli
conflict lies the ancient city of Jerusalem. Holy to all three Abrahamic
religions, the city has been the catalyst behind numerous military expeditions
despite its lack of strategic value. To Jews, the city was built upon the site
where Abraham almost sacrificed his son Isaac in reverence to G-d, the two ancient Jewish temples once stood, and is the location has served as the historical and cultural center of the
population since its foundation. For Christians the city is significant as the
location of Jesus’s death as well as the place where Jesus spent his last few
days. Finally, Muslims revere the city in part as the place where Muhammad
ascended to heaven, in addition to the aforementioned piety shown by Abraham.
Prior to the adoption of Christianity
as the state religion of the Roman Empire, Jerusalem served as a strategic city
sitting at the nexus of the trade and travel land routes between Africa and
Eurasia. At that time the religious significance of the city was only relevant
to the Jewish population of the world. However, after the dissolution of the
Roman Empire and the rise of Islam the city’s strategic value declined but its
religious significance expanded past the relatively small worldwide Jewish population.
Control of the city passed from the
Romans to the Byzantine Empire, who inherited it as the successor to the Roman
Empire, who then lost the city to the Muslim Caliphate in the 7th
Century. The Muslim Caliphate soon gave way to Western Christian forces who
established Crusader Kingdoms throughout the Levant centered on Jerusalem.
However, Jerusalem was soon recaptured by the Muslims under the leadership of
Saladin in the 12th century, and remained under Muslim control via
the Ottoman Empire’s governance of the area until the early 20th
century when the British captured the city during World War 1. After the end of
the British Mandate in 1948, Jerusalem was captured by the Jordanian army in
violation of the United Nation’s 1947 Partition Plan. A year later the Israeli
war of independence ended with the Jordanians controlling the majority of the
city in the East and the Israelis the Western portion.
While control of Jerusalem has switched hands
between the various imperial and religious powers that have ruled the region
over the last two thousand years, the entirety of the city’s territory remained
contiguous throughout the successive governance. That is until 1949 when
Jerusalem was split by the Armistice Line, otherwise known as the Green Line,
after the armistice agreement which temporarily abated the fighting between
Israel and the Kingdom of Transjordan, otherwise known as Jordan today. The
armistice line that was agreed to in 1949 serves as the widely recognized
border both between Israel and the West Bank and more importantly as the
division between East and West Jerusalem.
Since capturing East Jerusalem from
Jordan in 1967, Israel has since annexed the area, reunified the city as whole,
and declared a unified Jerusalem as the administrative, legislative and
judicial capital of the country. On the other hand the Palestinian populations
of both the West Bank and Gaza strip have claimed that either Jerusalem as a
whole is the rightful capital of a Palestinian state over the entire area now
encompassing the state of Israel or in the case of a two state solution East
Jerusalem should serve as the capital of the Palestinian state.
The present debate as well as the
past temporary division of the city has given rise to the international belief
that the city of Jerusalem could and should be partitioned as a fair and
amicable way resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, those who
proffer this position lack a true understanding over the logistical and legal
difficulties of such a plan as well as the basic realities over the situation.
This article will explore the
logistics, realities and legal issues surrounding Jerusalem, the possible
division thereof, and the question of sovereignty over the city.
Logistics
Jerusalem
is a modern day metropolis, but is anchored by the ancient location of the Old
City. The Old City is Jerusalem. Within the walls of the old city lie the
Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the
Western Wall and the Tomb of King David. These structures and sites are
considered to be some of the holiest, if not the holiest site, individually within
the three Abrahamic religions.
Any future division of Jerusalem
would undoubtedly be contingent on the negotiations between state sovereignty
and access to those sites.
However, the Old City as its name
implies is old. Over the last three thousand years, the Old City itself has
been destroyed, battered and rebuilt, but its basic design is still centered on
the restoration projects initiated by the Ottoman Empire in the 16th
century. Of course the city planners during the 16th century could
not have anticipated or planned for the invention or use of automobiles and
other modern day technologies. Additionally the restoration of the city was not
a rebuilding of the city from scratch, and the improvements and changes made by
the Ottomans still had to conform to the same principle structures that had previously
existed on the site.
Due to its historic development,
the Old City is a densely populated area with narrow corridors and streets,
with buildings and houses built both right on top of each other and next to
each other. Suffice it to say the Old City is barely conducive to modern technology
and wouldn’t be conducive to the security measures that would be dictated by an
international border being artificially established through its territory.
As proposed any partition of the
Old City and its division between two sovereign states would effectively create
an international border through the old city. Like all other international
borders, this would require state customs and immigration positions in addition
to a basic security apparatus on both sides of the border. Unlike most borders
that Europeans are accustomed to, this would be a highly volatile border, given
the state of affairs between the Palestinians and Israelis. Such a state would
necessitate a higher degree of security including different countermeasures that
would be difficult to employ even in other less densely populated and developed
urban areas. Additionally it must also be pointed out that any type of
construction in the Old City is usually met with public and administrative
rebuke given the development’s effect on the holy sites throughout the city.
Not only would the construction necessary to develop such a border be difficult
to pursue in the Old City, but the fear of desecrating the religiously
significant sites makes it all but impossible.
Even if a modern day international
border with the adequate security provisions mandated by the realities of the
region could be built in the old city, the location of the religious areas
would immediately thwart its development. As was initially discussed at the beginning
of this post, the division of the Old City would be out of necessity for
maintaining jurisdiction, sovereignty and access to the holy sites for the
citizens of the two emerging states. While the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is
isolated, the Western Wall, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are all
built on the same foundation, the ancient Temple Mount of the Second Temple of
Jerusalem which was destroyed by the Romans in the 1st century. The
Western Wall is the western wall of the temple mount which both the Dome of the
Rock, which was constructed over the Foundation Stone to the Second Temple, and
the Al-Aqsa Mosque are located. Creating a division, let alone an international
border, between those sites, aside from those already existing, without
damaging the integrity of the religious areas would be impossible.
 |
| The Old City of Jerusalem |
Dividing the Old City between two
sovereign states is not a logistical feat that is possible.
Reality
Since
we’ve established that the Old City cannot be divided between two sovereign territories
the question then must become whether East and West Jerusalem can be divided
and on what side of the dividing line would the Old City fall. As per the 1949
Armistice Line, the Old City sits on the border of the line, squarely falling
under the eastern portion of the territory. Prior to 1967, the Jordanian
government exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction over the area until the
Israeli victory brought the entirety of the West Bank under its jurisdiction.
 |
| 1949 Division of Jerusalem |
Currently
the Old City is internationally recognized to be located within East Jerusalem,
despite Israel’s annexation and reunification of the municipality subsequent to
the Six-Day War. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian government,
has claimed the capitol of any new Palestinian state to be East Jerusalem
including the Old City.
Many people who I’ve spoken to,
whether American, European or Chinese, have also proffered up this idea of
dividing Jerusalem as a provision of any final peace agreement, and are unable
to understand why such an equitable division cannot be accomplished.
Like the baby in the famous King
Solomon story, Jerusalem cannot be dividing equally. Unlike the Old City, the
inability to divide Jerusalem as a whole does not rest on the logistics, but
rather the realities and perception of the city, and unfortunately the
realities dictate that there is no such thing as an equitable division of
Jerusalem.
Let’s start with an example. If I
mentioned New York City, and then asked you to write down five locations that
first come to your mind, you would probably mention places like the Empire
State Building, Central Park, Grand Central Terminal, the World Trade Center,
Broadway, Wall Street and Times Square. All of those places are located on the
island of Manhattan, which is only one of five Boroughs that make up the entirety
of New York City (fully realizing that some might have mentioned the Statue of
Liberty, which is in New York Harbor and technically the island itself belongs
to New Jersey, and the Brooklyn Bridge which is half in Manhattan and half in
Brooklyn). Even though Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million people,
while the city as a whole has a population of 8.3 million, the fact remains
that when most people, even those who live in the “outer boroughs,” refer to
New York City or “the city” they are referring to the island of Manhattan.
 |
| 1) Manhattan, 2) Brooklyn, 3) Queens, 4) The Bronx, 5) Staten Island; the Gray landmass to the left of Manhattan is New Jersey. |
Hypothetically one day the Island
of Manhattan decides to break away from the rest of the city and even New York
State and decides to incorporate as part of New Jersey. In that scenario even
if both the island of Manhattan and the outer boroughs decided to retain the
name New York City separately, people would still be referring to the island of
Manhattan as New York City. Even though the “outer boroughs” New York City
would maintain the larger population (6.7 million people), and would still be
part of New York State, Manhattan was still where the original settlement that
grew into the present day city originated and is the location of many of the
sites which we attribute as being in and part of New York City. Although it
would be in New Jersey it would still be the dominant area perceived in people’s
minds, like how people generally refer to Kansas City, Missouri rather than
Kansas City, Kansas when they mention Kansas City. The “outer boroughs” would
remain New York City in name only, but would lose that distinction in
perception.
The same concept holds true for
Jerusalem. When people refer to Jerusalem they generally refer to the religious
sites in the Old City and East Jerusalem, like the Mount of Olives. Were there
to be a division that separated the Old City from West Jerusalem, West
Jerusalem would cease to be Jerusalem, although it would still carry the name.
The same holds true for East Jerusalem were the Old City to be redistricted to
West Jerusalem.
The fact remains that the Old City
is Jerusalem, and the division between East and West Jerusalem was an
artificial one which existed for 18 years of the city’s over 3,000 year
history. Any further division thereof would not be equitable since the
logistics of the reality demands that in a two state solution one state will
lose the Old City, and would therefor lose Jerusalem.
Final Thoughts
Israel
conquered and reunified the city of Jerusalem in 1967 and has every right to
maintain that unification and its sovereignty over the municipality. While it
can be argued that Israel broke its Armistice Agreement with Egypt starting the
Six-Day War, it was Jordan that broke the Armistice Agreement with Israel. It
must be remembered that Israel had separate Armistice Agreements between the
four neighboring Arab nations, and had no intentions at first of attacking
Jordan or the Jordanian positions in East Jerusalem or the West Bank. Jordan
was soundly defeated in that war.
As per International legal norms,
the victorious power has historically demanded concessions from the defeated
state, which may include territory. In this case Israel’s main concession from
Jordan was its sovereignty over East Jerusalem and the reunification of the
city of Jerusalem as whole.
Finally, the holy sites in
Jerusalem which are cited by the Palestinians and Muslim community as being the
precedent for Muslim control over those areas are the Dome of The Rock and the
Al-Aqsa Mosque. Both sites were built on top and over the holiest site in
Judaism, the temple mount which contains the temple ruins, which in turn
contains the Foundation Stone and the site for the Holy of Holies. Additionally,
access to these sites is restricted to Muslims only. Even though Israel as a
Jewish state maintains sovereignty over the area, it has abided by this restriction
and even enforces it against the Jewish and non-Muslim populations. This means
that Jews are not allowed to visit the most sacred of places in their religion.
 |
| The Dome of the Rock and Western Wall. |
When Jews pray, they pray towards
Jerusalem, specifically the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount. When Muslims
pray, they pray towards Mecca, not Jerusalem.
If one day Israel were to
hypothetically invade Saudi Arabia and conquer the city of Mecca, subsequently
decide that a holy event had taken place at the Ka’aba, the holiest site in
Islam, and then raise the Al-Masjid al-Haram mosque and build a temple enclosing
the Ka’aba while preventing Muslims access to the site, the Muslim world would
be enraged. The Muslim population would most likely seek retribution and
attempt to return Mecca to Muslim control. Yet when a similar action, albeit one
that was taken over a thousand years ago although the restrictions and
limitations are still imposed today, occurs against the Jewish population the
international community seems to be indifferent.
Israel has proven that it will respect
the presence of the Muslim religious sites in Jerusalem, allow Muslim access to
them, and even restrict non-Muslims access to those sites in accordance with
Islamic Law. In addition to the military and logistical realities, the
religious realities of the two separate beliefs means that the only equitable division
between the two religions is for the entirety of the city of Jerusalem to fall
under Israeli sovereignty and jurisdiction in any two state solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment