Jerusalem, the Eternal Capital of Israel

On August 11, the New York Times published an article by Stephen Erlanger on the divided road the Israelis are building around Jerusalem.  This road combines two roads - one for the Palestinians to be able to move from the Northern West Bank to the Southern West Bank and back - and one for the Israelis.  The roads are separated by a high wall.  For the Israelis, there are a number of exits that allow travelers to go into Jerusalem or down into the Jordan Valley.  For the Palestinians, there are no exits except at the terminal points.   The road is not news, nor is the concept.  It is, instead the fulfillment of former Prime Minister Arik Sharon’s vision of the future for the Palestinian entities in Judea and Samaria. Sharon told me his idea when we discussed the issue of settlements and how one could disentangle the Jewish and Palestinian populations.  To build a two state solution we in the State Department had always thought that there had to be real territorial unity between the Northern and Southern parts of the West Bank and that the Palestinian State had to have a presence in Jerusalem.  In fact, President Bush has on several occasions talked about the need for territorial contiguity within the Palestinian state. Sharon, however, never thought of the West Bank as one contiguous Palestinian entity that could form the basis of a State.

Sharon spoke of the contiguity of movement - not territory.  His vision was of a series of tunnels and restricted access roads that would tie the various Palestinian parcels of land together. Meanwhile, Israel would dominate the high points and strategic crossing points to ensure Israel’s security in the future.  Sharon, who drove the settlement process, placed these Israeli outposts as a guarantee against the possibility of terrorist dominated Palestinian entity and invasion from the East. 

One of the implications of the new road is that the Palestinians neighborhoods of Jerusalem are increasingly isolated by physical barriers from the rest of the West Bank.  In fact, Sharon never contemplated giving any part of Jerusalem up.  From the earliest days, in 1980, when I was working with Sol Linowitz on the Autonomy negotiations Sharon made it clear to us that we should start with the Jerusalem question because once the Palestinians accepted Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem, then a settlement of other issues and peace would be relatively easy to reach.  He never answered the question of how we were to get the Palestinians, let alone the Islamic world, to agree to such a solution.

The settlements that Israel has built around Jerusalem are unworthy of the name “settlement.”  They are mini cities that are permanent fixtures.  Their imposing presence convinced both Presidents Clinton and Bush that the Palestinians would have to accept this fait accompli.  And that very acceptance has pointed the way for Israel’s political leadership toward constructing - literally - a unilateral final resolution of the Jerusalem question.    There is still some more building to do to fill in the gaps that exist, but despite the inevitable wringing of hands in the State Department, I have little doubt that the Israeli plans will go forward and that the Arab parts of Jerusalem will, within ten years, be nothing more than an isolated island in the middle of a sprawling Israeli city. 

This is a story that has a long history.  My first post was in Israel in 1969.  At that time, Israel was in the process of establishing settlements in the Jordan valley.  They would start as Nahals, or military outposts, designed to pin down the border with Jordan and to secure the heights against future attack from the East. And gradually they would metamorphose into civilian settlements. The Israeli government had no declared policy of siezing the Jordan valley, but the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, Yigal Allon had written a short book in Hebrew outlining his concept of a peace in which Israel would gain sovereignty over one third of the West Bank along the Jordan border.  I wrote a report linking the plan to the settlements, but there was no interest in Washington in the Embassy in the facts on the ground.  Why waste time and leverage on settlements when all our efforts were directed toward a final settlement.

From that point on, we have watched and done nothing as the Israelis have built hundreds of settlements all over the West Bank.  And we have been particularly passive when it comes to Jerusalem.  Once in a while we have protested or sent our Ambassadors in to complain, but the Israelis know full well that we are not going to press the point.  It has always been inconvenient to press the Israelis on what was seen as the secondary question of the settlements when the more important issue of a final peace agreement was at stake.  And yet it is this very secondary question that has gradually excluded an increasingly large area of Palestinian land from any possible agreement and may put the possibility of any final agreement out of reach forever.

When I started in the business, my bosses conceded that the Latrun Salient - that small spit of Palestinian land that juts out from the West Bank into the land bridge that Israel had between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem - would be taken off the table and awarded to Israel. Now we are talking about taking all major Israeli city settlements off the table - over 8% of the West Bank.  And very soon, we will likely see the encirclement of Jerusalem completed and that too will come off the table.      

When that day comes the chances for peace will be gone, possibly forever.  How could a Palestinian agree to a settlement that did not have Jerusalem as an integral component? Yet I have not yet seen a US administration that has the political will to  stop the permanent acquisition of Jerusalem as the undivided eternal capital of Israel. The Israelis know very well that when the issue is Jerusalem, Congress will go their way and the President will not be far behind.  Objections based on the impact on our interests in the region will melt away in the warm glow of American politics.  It is not inevitable, but it is certainly possible.  So we had better start to plan now for how we will manage our interests in the long term as Palestinian statehood and an Arab stake in Jerusalem dissolve in the politics of Israel and America. 

Comments

[Megan Kidd]

The recent action of the Israeli’s in constructing a divided road around Jerusalem has sparked new concern with the hope for peace in the Middle East. The majority of Palestinians, unlike Israeli settlers, will not be able to exit in areas surrounded by the barrier or travel into Jerusalem, which Israel took over in 1967. Although the issue of the rightful group to control Jerusalem is still extremely controversial, it is the capital of present day Israel, and was awarded to them in the six-day war of 1967. Israel has rightfully taken control of the land, and is being reasonable in their offers of other land to the Palestinians. As the blog commented, “we have watched and done nothing as the Israelis have built hundreds of settlements all over the West Bank. And we have been particularly passive when it comes to Jerusalem”. The lack of action internationally to solve the Jerusalem problem has led the Israelis to finally take charge and finalize their country’s borders.
The borders Israelis are defining finally create a solid and physical separation between Israeli and Palestinian land and is the first step to a two-state solution that the Palestinians are yearning for. The wall also provides security for the Israelis. A clear border legitimizes the area as a separate state. In addition, according to the article “NO JERUSALEM EXIT FOR PALESTINIANS: Israelis building a 'contiguity' road to connect to the West Bank” in the San Francisco Chronicle, the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has “recently made conciliatory gestures to the Palestinians and says it wants to do what it can to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state”. Although the Palestinians claim they will not rest until they have taken over Jerusalem, the clear borders that Israel is establishing, in effect, creates this Palestinian state. In addition, these roads do not stop Palestinians from entering Israel; it just solidifies borders, and would require identification upon entry, just like any other citizen entering a foreign country. According to the same article in the San Francisco Chronicle, “In a final settlement, Israel is expected to offer Palestinians ‘land swaps’ elsewhere to compensate”. The road will connect the northern and southern parts of the West Bank, which in my opinion is a move to create and solidify borders, and to confirm the final status of Jerusalem.

[Julianne Jaquith]

How does the international community try to negotiate peace in a region over which two distinct religious and cultural groups assert they have sole ownership? This is the question that often plagues the United States in negotiating agreements with Israel and the Palestinians. However, as a long term ally of Israel, the United States is often biased in its role in negotiations, failing to consider third party interests and putting American domestic interests and Israeli interests first. This was a severe failing of our work during the second Camp David Accords. The United States has often chosen to ignore the interests of certain groups when it comes to negotiating peace in the Middle East.

As Israel continues to assert itself in Jerusalem and America condones it, I think about the Americans’ unwillingness to negotiate with “terrorist” groups. Should we continue to ignore terrorists’ interests because they utilize tactics that are in stark contrast to our value system? Wasn’t the fact that they were excluded from the dialogue an impetus for them to engage in terrorist tactics to begin with? Won’t continued exclusion, especially from Jerusalem, provide further impetus for terrorist action? I think we have more to lose by excluding groups like Hamas and the PLO from dialogue than by including them in the debate. If true peace is to be achieved, we must consider all perspectives, not just the perspectives that advance the short term interests of the United States.

[Asima Ahmad]

Considering how often the Israeli/Palestinian conflict shows up in the news, I’m surprised to see how hands-off the international community tends to be in enforcing rulings and decrees placed upon Israel. A New York Times article from September 5 said that the High Court Justice in Jerusalem has ordered Israel to reroute a portion of the wall that splits up a West Bank village from its farmland and affects the water supply of Palestinians. I’m interested to see whether Israel will abide by this mandate considering that in 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that the construction of the wall was illegal to begin with. Not only did Israel reject the advisory ruling but the wall’s construction has continued into portions that are outside of Israel’s internationally recognized borders and into eastern parts of the city (land which UN resolution 242 ruled was inadmissible to Israel in 1967).
President George W. Bush has stated that the creation of the wall is problematic when Palestinians and Israelis are trying to build confidence with one another, but I haven’t read or heard much about what the United States has been actively engaged in doing to try and change the situation. Although Israel can argue that the wall is being built for security purposes, it’s understandable that Palestinians and the Arab world see it as a means of expansion that will eventually become permanent. Their fears are especially pertinent when considering Ariel Sharon’s development plans mentioned by Ambassador Walker. I think there is potential for an extremely dangerous situation to take place if Israel ignores the ruling, especially if they continue to deny Palestinians a right of entry into Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a place of worship for Jews and Muslims alike; no one should prevent another person’s right to access a sacred location of prayer.
The United States should consider our nation’s role in this situation and address the growing tensions and negative views towards our country from the Middle East. If we continue to sit back and ignore the Palestinian plight while Israel continues to expand their territory and claim stakes to Jerusalem, the Palestinians may put themselves back into the public eye with the same and only tactic that seemed to work before: resistance turned violent.

[Nico Drohojowski]

There are a few comments I would like to make about this post. The first, being that we had a President who has tried to “solve” the problems between Israel and Palestine, Bill Clinton. Although this push at Camp David lead to nothing, except an outbreak of violence in the region in September of 2000, it showed that the US had an invested interest in the region. Even after Barak resigned in early December, Clinton again tried to have peace talks between the two sides and eventually in late December/Early January got them to agree to further negotiations. However, I feel as though this came too late in Clinton’s Presidency as he was going to leave office shortly after and it would up to George W. Bush to continue these talks. President Bush has done little to nothing in continuing these talks aside from the routine press conferences with the two sides in order to save face.
The second comment I have is that I don’t think it’s up to The United States to settle this debate. In its simplest form, this dispute is over land that two separate groups share, much like a civil war. Although it is obvious that there is much more behind this conflict, I don’t know why The US thinks they have to solve this. It seems as though it is just another example of the US trying to spread a democratic ideology over the world. Yes of course this is a bold statement, but I personally think that if something needs to get done in this region, it needs to be a number of countries or world organizations that engage in this debates. This does have the possibility of splitting the world up and fighting with each other (WW3), but also may bring more pressure on the two leaders to finally figure this out.
Huntington believes that countries do not divide the world up anymore, but rather by cultures do. He even goes as far to show a map with the “fault lines”. He fails to point out that even within countries, or territories, there are such a huge factions. Maybe these debates are not working because the Jewish community and the Arab Community need to get involved and not just one area. I by no means am speaking about a war, but an open dialogue that all interested parties can speak freely at. This may never happen, but there is always a chance.

[Bianca Dragan]

Both the Israelis and the Palestinians want peace but not at any price. There is a proverb that seems perfectly to depict the Israeli - Palestinian conflict over land: ‘‘we shall struggle for peace so hard that not a tree will be left standing.'' And indeed trees are wiped out during air strikes in the name of peace. The stakes are important: for once, both people claim ownership of Jerusalem. Religious claims on land give birth to greater conflicts that involve sovereignty, sense of security, border delimitations, cultural differences and stereotypes; air strikes, bombings and ambushes.
In 2006 (April 16) Steven Erlanger wrote in The New York Times an appropriate metaphor for the two sides: "good walls may make good neighbors, but not if they take too much of the neighbor's land." The Israeli settlements have indeed gradually excluded an increasingly large area of Palestinian land from any possible agreement and estranged the possibility of a peace pact from being made. By creating this road, Israel is accused of intensifying the conflict by forcing communities apart and greedily grabbing land. Some call the concrete wall the apartheid wall because it divides the road into two lanes, one for each people. The wall is increasingly criticized because it is made in the patterned image of Jerusalem stones, which means the road is meant to be permanent. Ehud Olmert said Israel would do what it can to ease the creation of a Palestinian state. However, Olmert, like Sharon, has said that Israel intends to keep the land to the east of Jerusalem."
There are few places in the world where governments construct a web of nationality and residency laws designed for use by one section of the population against another. Apartheid South Africa was one. The Palestinians point the finger at Israel as another one. The Israelis argue they have more in common with South Africa's black population than with its oppressors. In his most recent article, it seems to me that Erlanger takes a side and directly accuses Israel without giving it an opportunity to present its case. He puts Israel on trial, suggesting that the construction of the highway is part of a scheme "to build more settlements and cut the Palestinians off from Jerusalem." Nowhere in the article is it explained that a divided road might protect civilians against road ambushes and bombings carried out by Palestinians. Erlanger doesn't give Israel the chance to make the point that the roads are meant to ease the tension between Israel's security fear and the territorial contiguity/security for Palestinians traveling north and south in the West Bank. Israel spent the first decades of its existence fighting for its life. Israel is a lot stronger now but it still has the violent, vulnerable (religious) past that reminds it that it is still in need of protection; it’s hard to forget the genocide the Judaic people have experienced.
When trying to negotiate the politics of a country, you cannot get a solution from religion, but you cannot ignore religion either. Using religion, any action can be justified, no matter how violent, because it is based on "truth." When both sides feel they are the only aggrieved party, we cannot talk about a give-and-take negotiation. Also when sides deny the other's legitimacy like when Arafat dismissed all Jewish and religious and historical roots in the Temple Mount (Aharon Klieman, "Israeli Negociating Culture"), delegitimizing the very authenticity of Judaism, negotiation is taken off the table. Religious problems are eternal but without cultural understanding and sensitivity peace is not even an option on the negotiation table. From the point of view of outcome, I don't see trees being planted on either side of the wall, especially when concrete is being poured.

[Will Bartholomew]

The issue of complete Israeli takeover of Jerusalem goes beyond religion for both sides. Although religious claims on the city certainly are important, and do inspire strong feelings in both Muslims and Jews, more important are the issues of respect, security, and the domestic political implications of any settlement.

A complete Israeli takeover of Jerusalem would substantively ignore Muslim claims on the city, humiliating Palestinians as well as the greater Muslim world. Such an outcome would have serious, and probably deadly, implications for any Palestinian leader who agreed to such a deal without convincingly making it look like he used all means at his disposal to resist it. The humiliation would reverberate throughout the Arab world as an Israeli takeover of Jerusalem would be perceived to be yet another example of the imposition of Western – Zionist will in the face of an Arab world unable to resist it. Such a perception could have serious implications for those Arab leaders that the United States counts as allies.

Domestic political concerns similarly affect the Israeli standpoint on the issue. Aharon Klieman describes an Israeli negotiating culture that is dominated by concerns for security. In the case of the road that is being built around Jerusalem, and in the greater case of complete Israeli control of Jerusalem, security concerns are paramount. The threat to Israel is not imagined, the country has been militarily attacked on several occasions and faces intermittent terrorist bombings, yet the security subculture which dominates much of Israeli politics makes it impossible for any Israeli leader to ever appear soft on this issue. Hence the building of the road with exits for Israeli’s but not for Palestinians continues, the building of settlements continues, and there is little-to-no respect for Palestinian concerns.

Many in the Arab world believe that the United States is in collaboration with Israel against the emergence of any Muslim or Arab power. America’s perceived implicit support on the issue of the road and subsequent Israeli takeover of Jerusalem only erodes America’s image, and support for American causes in this part of the world. It is worth re-evaluating if this stance is in the United States’ interests or not.

[Alexandra Jenik]

The divided road that the Israelis are in the process of building between the Northern and Southern parts of the West Bank illustrates the Israelis unyielding push to encroach on Palestinian territory. The high wall acts as yet another means to separate the Israelis and the Palestinians, only strengthening the growing division between the two groups. Currently, little has been done to begin new negotiations. The constantly growing Israeli settlements all over the West Bank may represent one of the reasons negotiations have failed to reconvene. The settlements have misplaced thousands of Palestinians, and have even divided Palestinian neighborhoods, making it difficult for them to travel. According to an article in The Economist from January 2007, many West Bank roads are either entirely off limits to Palestinian cars because of Israeli security concerns for the settlements, or there are checkpoints which are often irregular and extremely time consuming. In short, many Palestinians who live in the West Bank have few options for employment, because of their limited mobility. Like the Israeli settlements, the new Palestinian road, where there are “no exits except at the terminal points” represents another oppressive force in hindering Palestinian mobility. Any force that continues to prevent the Palestinians from moving freely, especially around highly religious areas will only be seen as damaging to future negotiations.
Jerusalem is equally important to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, so negotiations regarding this city have always been difficult. If in the next ten years, the Arab neighborhoods will be like isolated islands in a sprawling Israeli city, as Ambassador Walker claims, then Israel will have succeeded in gaining more territory. If the separate roads also prove to be successful from a security standpoint, then there will be no motivation on the side of the Israelis to even discuss Jerusalem. I can only see the construction of this road as another step backward for the development and mobility on the Palestinian side, as well as a step backward for the peace process altogether.

[Andrew Neumann]

The final issue in the process of trying to broker a lasting peace between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples has always been control over Jerusalem. It is widely accepted that other areas of conflict could be successfully resolved if only there was a real chance at overcoming this final obstacle. While some issues have dissolved over time and others have risen to replace them, the problem of Jerusalem, despite numerous proposals and negotiations, has remained. However, Sharon’s proposed solution to build this divided road and other physical barriers, effectively eliminating the Palestinian presence within Jerusalem, will only serve to compound the negative factors of this situation and make achieving a true peace that much more untenable.
The idea of Jerusalem solely under Israeli control is an issue of concern not only for Palestinians but would also be a serious blow to the rest of the Arab world as well. Jerusalem is so overwhelmingly important from a religious point of view for both the Jewish and Islamic faiths that eliminating Palestinian access to it could conceivable be interpreted as eliminating access for all Arabs. As the wall continues to be erected it seems quite likely that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt may be inclined to once again take up the banner of "Palestinian sovereignty."
With the Palestinian-Israeli relationship at this current impasse, and the fact that Israel is acting relentlessly unilateral in constructing this wall, to hope for some sort of negotiated agreement between the two would be optimistic bordering on foolishness. If this is the case, despite Israel’s status as a serious military power, it would not be unreasonable to expect the Arab nations to seek to implement some sort of military option. Judging from the way past conflicts between the Arab world and Israel have faired, it seems certain that another defeat would be in store for the Arab countries. Along with defeat would come additional losses of territory to Israel and increasing bitterness between both sides. Ultimately, the hopes for any kind of a peace would be further diminished, only to be replaced by a greater sense of animosity throughout the entire region.

[Reid Snyder]

After reading through the posting, I immediately thought back to a discussion during the first meeting of the semester. Ambassador Walker was commenting on the Camp David Summit at the conclusion of Bill Clinton's Presidency. At which, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat made it unequivocally clear that sovereign territory in Jerusalem trumped any other issue. The blog posting deals directly with this notion, and the Israeli's subsequent actions. Over the last half century, Palestinian land claims in the region have continuously diminished. On the contrary, Israel has managed to gain more territory and international political clout.

The new road under construction is planned to increase transportation for all, while separating the combative nations. One might state that this is a self-interested facade, not too different from the Bush administration's ideological standing in the Middle East. It appears as though the development will prove to be another means for Israel to exert regional control and continue to neglect the presence of "one contiguous Palestinian entity." The layout of the highway prohibits Palestinians from specific regions, further dividing their already split population and land. I agree with the concept that as the region, specifically Jerusalem, becomes more divided and controlled by Israeli power moves, peace is a distant possibility. Both sides of the conflict have claims upon the holy city, yet the assertive Israeli's have consistently worked on barriers to prevent Palestinians from the area. In a conflict with one main focus point, unilateral Israeli control will not lead to peace anytime soon. As long as Jerusalem is at the heart of the argument, and it will be, the two-road highway is leading to a political dead end.

[Stephen Sallan]

Prime Minister Sharon’s belief in a Palestinian state based on contiguity of movement rather than land is currently the most reasonable solution given the continued chaos amongst the Palestinian government. Hamas’ violent seizure of territory from Fatah only promotes Israeli security concerns. But Israel cannot simply solve contiguous Palestinian movement by intricate walls and tunnels. Israel will be faced with the same situation as the southern American border. Building a tall fence will only produce taller ladders to facilitate free movement.
Similarly, continued settlement activity will also not secure peace for Israel. Cutting off Jerusalem through a series of encircling settlements will not automatically make possession of the city a moot point. Forceful seizure of Jerusalem will serve as invaluable propaganda material for continued fighting. Palestinians will no longer accept Israeli control as justification for defeat. Israel must find a way to guarantee some kind of Palestinian control over parts of Jerusalem rather than choke it off and hope nobody cares. The current global trend favors international peacekeepers to maintain security in contentious areas, but the Israelis still do not trust the UN for security after peacekeepers failed to halt the Egyptians from attacking Israel. To maintain security in a jointly controlled city such as Jerusalem will require a new kind of security force that can instill trustworthiness and reliability for both sides before any kind of lasting peace can exist in the city.

[Arthur Giovannangeli]

There is certainly no denying that the closer permanent Israeli settlements move to Jerusalem the more difficult it will be for a lasting peace to be reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This is the treatment that Palestinians have always feared and loathed, the western world sitting idly by while Israel is allowed to continue stealing their land and homes. According to Dennis Ross in The Missing Peace the Palestinians feel deeply wronged by the world’s approach to Israel. They feel as if they were made to pay for the mistakes made by the Europeans with regards to the Jews and that they are entitled to all of Palestine. Jerusalem is certainly no exception to this sentiment; in fact it might be the area to which the Palestinians feel the deepest sense of attachment and entitlement.
Israelis, however, feel no less entitled to the old city of Jerusalem for it is their religion’s holiest city and, therefore, houses many sites with great spiritual meaning to Jews everywhere. Israel is especially protective of Jerusalem because between 1948 and 1967 all of the Jerusalem’s holy monuments had been closed to Israelis. When Israel captured the city in during the Six Day War of 1967, according to Amos Elon in his book The Israelis: Founders and Sons, “the emotional impact on Jews everywhere was tremendous.” After the capture of Jerusalem and the emotional outpouring from Israelis and Jews all over the world, Israel annexed the parts of the city were particularly important to Jews to make sure they would never lose them again. The building of Israeli “settlements” around Jerusalem, therefore, is not that surprising since it is the holiest city in Judaism and Israel wishes to ensure its presence there and allow Israelis access to its religious sites. Using cities and settlements to establish its presence is not unfamiliar to Israel since, according to Ross, it has long sought to make Arabs everywhere realize that it is here to stay and is too deeply rooted to be forced out. By building small cities around Jerusalem, Israel is probably hoping that such permanent Israeli fixtures make Arabs everywhere realize that they are never going to leave.
Even though this situation does look bleak, there are some small rays of light that could provide some hope for peace. First of all Israel has often acquired land by force from its neighboring Arab states only to later use it as a bargaining chip in future negotiations. In a tactic that Dennis Ross referred to as “land for peace,” Israel has, in the past, been willing to give up land and territory in order to ensure they won’t have live behind an “iron wall.” By establishing a very solid presence in and around Jerusalem, the Israel government might eventually be able to use some of that land to help negotiate with the Palestinians. Dennis Ross observed in The Missing Peace that Israel has shown a “readiness to make serious, far-reaching concessions when it is clear they have a real partner.” If a Palestinian government gains power and is able to convince Israel that they are serious about peace and the interests of Israelis as well as Palestinians, then the Israeli government might be willing to listen to their concerns. If Jerusalem, as it is like to be, is at the center of those concerns than Israel will have to look seriously at solving the issue, be it through land exchange or some other means. Still, Jerusalem has long been at heart of Palestinian and Israeli negotiations and no solution has been reached. Yet maybe, with Israel slowly surrounding the city, urgency will aid the negotiations.

[Stuart]

I believe Israel has a right to protect herself and her citizens from terror. I believe Palestinians have a right to territory and independence. Those are the simple statements and assumptions. The devil, as always, is in the details.

Because I believe Israel has a right to defend herself from terror, I believe Israel has a right to construct a road from Palestine to Jerusalem without exits into what is rightfully Israel. However, I am not convinced that Israel can rightfully or reasonably created a greater buffer of Israeli territory around Jerusalem by building and linking settlements in the West Bank to claim more land for Israel – I strongly believe in the Palestinian right to statehood and access to Jerusalem. Accordingly, my simple and idealistic belief is that a portion of the West Bank around Jerusalem should serve as an internally neutral zone. Palestine and Israel can protect and arm their borders, but not the neutral zone. Jerusalem itself should be government by a bi or multi-lateral group that consists of both Arab and Israeli representatives (similar to the one Rusk has suggested). To enter the neutral zone, and therefore the holy city of Jerusalem, Jews and Muslims would have to clear security checkpoints. Yes, it’s simplistic. Yes, it’s idealistic. Yes, it underestimates the terrorists’ persistence and ruthlessness. But maybe, just maybe, we could find a way to make it work.

[Katie Plummer]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an ongoing dilemma for recent administrations. Despite the United States’ good intentions, the peace negotiations have been consistently placed on the back burner as a result of other pressing international developments throughout the world. Due to this lack of attention and pressure, Israel has done everything in their power to improve their position and deter peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The creation of these “mini cities” surrounding Jerusalem and the West Bank only benefit Israel, as more of these disputed lands are taken off the negotiating table, which will result in no peace agreements between the two parties. Israel will continue to take actions to ensure their survival until they are stopped. The United States needs to be this strong force and put these harmful actions to a halt before it is too late. Recently, the United States has recognized these actions, but merely given Israel a slap on the wrist and went on to other international business. Israel knows that the United States will not take force against them and therefore, will continue to push the limits. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs to be taken to the fore-front of United States foreign policy if the United States is serious in helping to bring lasting peace to the region. These issues have existed for decades and if the United States allows Israel the ability to keep pushing the limits, there will be no hope of peace because there will be nothing to negotiate with. It is unfair to the Palestinians to keep favoring Israel, especially when they are negating the peace process. The United States must consider the negative impact of their Israeli bias in the Arab world. If future administrations hope to work successfully with other Arab nations, they must develop policies that still support Israel, but take on more forceful stance as well.

[Sara Bryant]

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an ongoing struggle between the two peoples over their holy land in the Middle East. The heart of the conflict between the two nations exists in the continuous battle over the appropriation of land. The key areas of contention between the Israelis and the Palestinians are the states of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel. Because both Palestinians and Israelis live in the above-mentioned states, ideally they would be able to co-govern these provinces, however, that negotiation is not seen as a feasible option.
The current state of disagreement between the two peoples exists largely because of the current Palestinian ruling party, the Hamas. The heart of negotiations (or what should be negotiations) between the two groups is over the control of land. These negotiations could potentially exist and be successful, however the Hamas do not believe that the Israelis should even exist, so they are essentially unwilling to accept or allow any land to belong to the Israelis. Currently, Palestinians, who feel that those areas in addition to East Jerusalem are rightfully theirs, occupy the Gaza Strip and nearly the entire West Bank. The Israelis, however, are unwilling to give up any part of Jerusalem, their holy land, and want to have all of Israel as their own. Due to their strong natured disagreement, negotiations seem improbable.
At the current governmental state, negotiations are impossible between the two peoples, mainly because the Hamas governing body is far too anti-Israeli to make any agreements. The pockets of Israelis in predominantly Palestinian states, and of Palestinians in predominantly Israeli states causes significant security concerns because the reluctance to negotiate and create sovereign states has created serious conflicts. Both groups want peace, but neither wants to pay a price.

[Christina Culver]

At first glance, former Prime Minister Arik Sharon’s concept of building a road to separate the Palestinians from the Israelis appears to be a “quick fix” to the violent chaos that has plagued the area surrounding Jerusalem. Further consideration, however, reveals that not only will the road not solve the problems at hand, but chances are it will make matters worse in the long run.

The road serves as a wall – a wall designed to keep the Palestinians off land they consider to be rightfully theirs. This is the first problem. Preventing Palestinians from entering Jerusalem may bring a temporary cease to violence but will ultimately fail in creating lasting peace simply because the “peace” will be rooted in forced harmony and fear instead of on mutual negotiations. I disagree with the State Department’s belief that unity of the West Bank is crucial. Is unity ideal? Yes, but not crucial. A separation is feasible, but only under mutual consent from both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Without communication between both sides, anger will continue to fester and tension will build until ultimately, violence erupts once again.

Sharon’s plan fails to take into account the religious, historical and cultural ties that the Palestinians have to Jerusalem; which is ironic given that these are the same ties that connect the Israelis to the Holy City. In the New York Times article “A Segregated Road in an Already Divided Land,” Steven Erlanger quotes an Israeli lawyer who asserts that the Palestinians are being treated equally because their half of the road is constructed in the same manner as the Israeli road. Equality of road widths and structure, however, does not mean the roads are equal. It is what lies off the road that makes the arrangement unequal. As Ambassador Walker correctly points out, the road insinuates borders that will shape the area’s geographic future. Unfortunately, this future does not meet the needs of the Palestinians, or even take them into consideration. The entire layout, as Israeli government spokesperson, David Baker, points out in Erlanger’s article, is arranged to “protect the citizens of Israel.” Until both sides can fully understand each other’s motives – historical, religious, cultural and political – reaching a compromise will be impossible. Only once this understanding is reached can we hope advance towards a lasting peace. While the prospect of reaching this level of understanding is bleak given the dilemma’s history, it is certainly worth another try when you consider the alternative – perpetual warfare. So rather than establishing lasting borders, all parties involved would be better served to retain the current boundaries in an effort to salvage the possibility of negotiating lasting peace in the future.

[Josh Meah]

I don’t think that the issue of Israel will disappear from American politics in the near future, and the reason for this is best observed through an exploration of the philosophy and role of violence as applied by the competing interests whom are active in the Palestinian-Israeli war. Because US politics are Israelo-centric, I believe that as long as Israel remains under the threat of violence, then Palestinian-Israeli peace will remain a central issue. The road dividing Israel and Palestine over East Jerusalem is one example that illustrates a general principle of purported religious, historical, and geopolitical separation.

As the world famous philosopher Jacques Derrida wrote in Archive Fever, “The determination of the Self as One is violence.” This is an incredibly lucid and powerful statement: as one attempts to separate oneself from others, as if we existed in the world without their contribution to the understanding of ourselves, we negate others from our reality. By analogy, it is to imagine that the American identity exists without the contributions of virtually all world cultures. To lessen others from our understanding of reality is to make them less human than we consider ourselves to be. The result is to ease the difficulty of acting maliciously toward them. If divisions between Arabs and Jews exists, then so will a state of violence.

So here is what it comes down to: Israel has property rights only by having the guns to back up its own mandates. The implication of military occupation in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem is to legitimize violence as a means of diplomacy. Additionally, the ‘Apartheid Wall,’ as called by many, only exacerbates the tensions. Even though Israel is attempting a Clauswitzian ‘total victory’ takeover of territory, it somehow neglects how third parties will react to its policies. Israel should realize that it is not combating simply Palestine, but the entire Arab nation of 250+ million people. Should the nations actually learn to work together effectively (and Israel is giving them more and more reason to learn to do so), Israel may be putting its long term security interests at risk. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a reality where the perceived religious, historical, and geopolitical interests of Israel and the surrounding Arab states do not elevate regional tensions and even escalate future terrorism against Israel.

The road mentioned by the Ambassador truly is just Israel’s signature on what has become the implicit foreign policy toward Palestine and the Arab world: Israel doesn’t talk to compromise -- it diplomatically bullies, occupies by force, or it kills. In an article in the International Herald Tribune of August 11, 2007, Shaul Arieli, a reserve colonel in the Israeli Army is quoted as saying that, “This[road] was how to connect the West Bank while keeping Jerusalem united and not giving Palestinians any blanket permission to enter east Jerusalem.” In the same article, Khalil Tufakji, a top Palestinian geographer stated that, in the end, “there is no Palestinian state, even though the Israelis speak of one. [T]here will be a settler state and a Palestinian built-up area, divided into three sectors, cut by fingers of Israeli settlement and connected only by narrow roads.”
Israel, like many Arab states, makes the mistake of ignoring the interconnectedness of the region, and, in doing so, inevitably perpetuates a state of violence in both atmosphere and body count.

Even sadder though is that the most powerful country on the planet, the US, is ‘Israelo-centric,’ thereby perpetuating the divides instead of helping to establish interconnectedness. The recently deceased Palestinian activist and American scholar Edward Said (224) observed the following:

“Because of Israeli interests in this country, U.S. Middle East policy is therefore Israelo-centric. A post-9/11 chilling conjuncture has occurred in which the Christian right, the Israeli lobby, and the Bush administration’s semi-religious belligerency is theoretically rationalized by neoconservative hawks whose view of the Middle East is committed to the destruction of Israel’s enemies, which is sometimes given the euphemistic label of redrawing the map by bringing regime change and “democracy” to the Arab countries that most threaten Israel.”

Moreover, the media is virtually the West’s only medium used to comprehend the war, and the U.S. media has done a fantastic job of presenting an unbalanced view of the war. This perpetuates divisions. Said (217-220) wrote the following in one of his final essays:

“[t]hus the first step in the dehumanization of the hated Other is to reduce his existence to a few insistently repeated simple phrases, images, and concepts. This makes it much easier to bomb the enemy without qualm…Most stories about the Palestinians that appear in genteel and influential mass circulation publications like The New Yorker and The New York Times Magazine show Palestinians as bomb-makers, collaborators, and suicide bombers, and only that.”

These messages from the Western media are contrasted with an Arab world that actually experiences these tortures and deaths and (perhaps rightfully) blames many of those deaths on US foreign policy. As the different societies are faced with completely different messages to internalize, Palestine remains a society neglected by the West and surrounded by violence.
Palestine is a tragedy. Mix the physical violence with tragedy, and the only option is an increasingly violent quagmire. Philosopher Hannah Arendt (80) writes on particularly that subject:

“Moreover, the danger of violence…will always be that the means overwhelm the end. If goals are not achieved rapidly, the result will be not merely defeat but the introduction of the practice of violence into the whole body politic…The practice of violence, like all action changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world.”(Italics added by me)

A society that has descended into violence is considerably more likely to resort to fundamentalist beliefs as their only way out. Hence, Palestine experiences the divisions of the radical Islamist group Hamas that favors a perpetual state of war against the ‘non-existing state’ of Israel over the secular and more peace welcoming Fatah. The implication is that the moderate Palestinian citizen is accosted with violence between the factions supporting Fatah and Hamas, and also by the militant occupation by Israel. Thus, Palestine is placed in a perpetual state of violence and instability that can only lead to more violence.

I don’t think Palestine will fade into the abyss of U.S. and Israeli politics, because I foresee a particularly aggressive terrorist assault on Israel that will force the world to pay more attention to the issue. It’s sad, but most likely inevitable. Israel sits on a kingdom made of blood, and the Middle Eastern theatre is highly volatile as Israel and the U.S. carve it up. At some point, the increasing divides of Islamic Jihad vs. Globalization’s McWorld, as described by Benjamin Barber, are bound to result in unpredictable conflict. After all, it’s impossible for groups to fight over the same territory, and yet simultaneously ignore each other’s interests.

Much more blood will be shed, we’re not leaving the Middle East anytime soon, and an Israelo-centric political system certainly will not let us ignore the situation.

Summarized bibliography:

Said. Edward W. From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map. 2004. Pantheon Book. NY

Arendt. Hannah On Violence. 1970. Brace & World Inc. NY

Erlanger. Steven “New West Bank road sets Arabs apart.” August 11, 2007. The International Herald Tribune.

[Mariam Ballout]

“It has always been inconvenient to press the Israelis on what was seen as the secondary question of the settlements when the more important issue of a final peace agreement was at stake. And yet it is this very secondary question that has gradually excluded an increasingly large area of Palestinian land from any possible agreement and may put the possibility of any final agreement out of reach forever.”

YES. More than 65 UN resolutions have targeted Israel, most of which have been uninforced and therefore ultimately ignored. In 2004, the International Court of Justice and the United States ordered Israel NOT to build the “security wall” inside the internationally accepted borders of the Palestinian Territories. However, Israel was given no incentives, economic or otherwise, to obey this jurisdiction and is currently building it anyway. Just this past month (August, 2007), the United States approved a $30 billion hike in defense aid to Israel, a 25% increase in military grants. If the United States really wanted to press the Israelis on settlements, such increases in aid would be contingent on Israel following accepted borders, not building the wall against publicly stated American wishes, and honoring past United Nations resolutions.

Proselytes have taught for centuries that Jerusalem has “holy” qualities and history, and such deeply held beliefs cannot be altered by scientific evidence. Efforts to debunk either religious claim on the city have ultimately proved irrelevant, as both sides are determined to hold on until death. It is not logical or productive to argue about which religious claim is stronger or more correct when both claims are held fervently by millions of people who are willing to mobilize for their protection. While both the Israelis and the Palestinians have displayed some willingness to trade or sacrifice various land settlements throughout the region in the pursuit of larger goals, neither side has ever or will ever be able to accept a complete relinquishment of important parts of Jerusalem. This was the very reason Yasser Arafat had to reject the end proposal at the Camp David Accords in 2000 and that peace effort ultimately failed. Awareness of this fact plays into Israel’s policy of slowly carving away pieces of Jerusalem without entering into a formal negotiation forum where lack of approval from Palestinians and the international community would become more explicit.

While Israel’s position of military superiority allows it to initiate essentially whatever construction projects it wants, such action does little to provide safety for its citizens.
The best way to fight terrorism is to stop creating incentive for rebellion. Israel’s own success in the 1948 war is reflective of the fact that people fight harder when they perceive themselves as “Davids” fighting an insurmountable Goliath. Partitioned roads, checkpoints, and walls that allocate resources and freedom of movement unequivocally to one side exacerbate the humanitarian crisis the Palestinians are facing, many of whom lack access to water and other basic needs. There are widely circulated stories of women and children abused at Israeli checkpoints, as well as desperately needed goods spoilt due to checkpoint “delays”. Such dismal realities and emotional stories deepen the perception of Israel as a bullying Goliath, a Goliath that millions of Muslims, Arabs, and other sympathizers throughout the world will unite to fight if it oversteps its bounds too audaciously. These reasons added to extreme religious attachment mean that physical constructs like the road through Jerusalem do not provide the security for which they are said to be built.

Desperation is the most fertile breeding ground for terrorism and extremism, and creating desperation brings Israel farther away from peace with its neighbors. The road described in Erlanger’s article may supplement the “security”/”partition” wall (depending on whether you are speaking with an Israeli or a Palestinian leader) in helping Israel chip away more territories and sovereignty from the Palestinians without international support, but it will not lead to peace or stability in the region. Muslims throughout the world will not be able to accept a completely Israeli-controlled Jerusalem, and terrorism and violence will increase dramatically the closer it comes to that point of total control.

[Olivia Reynolds]

The road around Jerusalem, with specific routes and entry points for Israelis and Palestinians, exacerbates the capacity for Israel and Palestine to negotiate peace. Sharon expressed a desire for a ‘contiguity of movement rather than territory’ however a road highlights the territorial significance of the problem.

Land ownership is undoubtedly a factor in the peace process however it is not the only point of contention. The road fails to address the concerns regarding refugees, water, sovereignty, and perhaps most importantly, religion. The cultural impact of religion is paramount to deriving peace. References to Jerusalem are prevalent in the Torah, contributing to the common perception that Jerusalem is a Jewish historical site. Jerusalem is also considered a holy site in the Muslim tradition as described in the Koran. Building boundaries between Palestinians is not a pragmatic approach to peace; rather it suggests arrogance, superiority, and uncontrolled brashness.

The goals of the peace process are muddied. There are so many issues and so many players that no one is able to progress, no one is aware of their role, or their ability to contribute as demonstrated by the multiple misinterpretations of UN Resolution 242. Until clarified, the peace process is lost.

The US, while attempting to provide international assistance, stands in a difficult position. Long time supporters of Israel they are obliged to continue their support, however the US is also keen to encourage peace which requires consideration of Palestinian efforts. As a third party, it seems unwise for the US to practice such biased foreign policy. As a mediator, the US needs to understand and communicate the foundations, needs, and goals for both Israel and Palestine. In turn they need to prevent Israel from preventing further negotiations with inappropriate advances like the road around Jerusalem. Creating further divides only obstructs the peace process. Palestinian communities are segmented and pushed from the center of Jerusalem. Palestinians may feel more excluded and abused as a result of the wall, leading them to have more requests and compromise less when negotiating with Israel. The road eschews any consideration for history, culture, or the realization of practical goals.

Sharon suggests that if a peaceful solution to Jerusalem is reached all unresolved points will follow. This is unrealistic when a road hinders Palestinian access to Jerusalem and ignores the goals of a long-term peace solution.

[Justin Sherman]

The Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for control of Jerusalem since the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. The city is religiously significant for both sides, making the territory a primary issue in peace negotiations. The Israelis, however, have demanded dominant control of Jerusalem and are unwilling to accept an agreement that promises them anything less. The Palestinians, on the other hand, would never forfeit all of Jerusalem to the Israelis because of their religious ties and former ownership of the land. Israel’s approach is detrimental to the peace process because Jerusalem is something that needs to be negotiated by both sides; not demanded by one. Negotiations are a give-and-take relationship that requires the Palestinians and the Israelis to make concessions and part with some things in order to acquire others. Jerusalem, as a primary issue in the conflict, is one area where compromises should be made by both sides and not exclusively acquired by either the Palestinians or the Israelis. In essence, Israel’s policy towards Jerusalem leaves no room for a resolution because they refuse to “give” and only want to “take.”
Moreover, the United States government refuses to oppose Israeli expansion into Jerusalem and their increasing dominance over the territory. Besides the occasional protests or complaints by Ambassadors and other government officials, the U.S. has remained on the sidelines and viewed Jerusalem as a secondary issue to the ultimate goal of a final peace settlement in the region. Such an approach underestimates the importance of Jerusalem in the conflict and is something the U.S. should consider a more unbiased approach to the situation.

[Andrew Gumbiner]

Since 1948 and the creation of Israel, geo-politics have bifurcated into two apposing camps, pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, as the two groups fight over religion, land, and statehood. It is generally undisputed that with powerful European and U.S. allies, Israel enjoys the political and economic upper hand in the dispute, allowing them to dictate and shape the possible Palestinian state. Clearly, in Palestinian state building negations former President Sharon tried to limit Palestine’s territorial claim in both the West Bank and Jerusalem. Between isolating Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem and dividing the Northern and Southern West Bank, it is evident that Israeli government is unwilling to enter into fair peace negotiations that will finally end the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In fact, the Israelis are ignoring the two fundamental peace-making elements that could potentially solve the conflict once and for all, even though they claim to the Palestinians and the international community to want peace. First, the Palestinians require an uninterrupted sovereign border connecting the Northern and Southern West Bank; and second, the Palestinians must have some legitimate claim to the third most important city in Islam, Jerusalem. Underscoring these two major areas of conflict that have historically proven to exacerbate tensions, by physically dividing the Palestinian population and by restricting access to Islamic religious sites will only permanently fuel resentment in the Middle East. In other words, while Israel’s short term goal is to keep as much of Jerusalem and West Bank territory as possible, ethnic fighting and terrorist attacks will continue if the Palestinians and other Arab states feel that they were forced to accept an unequal peace treaty.
Ignoring both of the Palestinian’s claims in the peace process will eventually be detrimental to the long-term security of Israel and the US. Therefore, with significant historical, political, and ideological influence in Israeli politics, it is imperative that the US Congress, State Department, and the President take a more evenhanded approach in the peace negations, and try to broker a fair and lasting peace treaty. If the US is truly interested in finding a ‘final solution’ to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict they must find a way to persuade Israel to compromise some of Jerusalem and territorial claims in the West Bank for the potential of eternal peace in the Middle East.

[Alex Caruso]

Ambassador Walker does a good job outlining the dismal humanitarian situation in Palestine, but with more details it is possible to better understand the magnitude of the situation. According to David Shearer, Director of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian Territories, movement for Palestinians is restricted by roads with limited exits, roadblocks, checkpoints, trenches, earth mounds, flying checkpoints and road barriers.

These restrictions make it impossible for many Palestinians to travel to places which are essential to their daily lives. Israeli settlements and the West Bank Barrier have also negatively affect Palestinians by taking their land as well as the natural resources that come with it. For example the once important trading town of Qalqiliya has been stultified by the barrier due to restricted access to water wells. The combination of settlements, the West Bank Barrier, and limited access to Jerusalem is severely impacting Palestinians way of life.

Restrictions on travel and territory have affected economic hardship on the Palestinians as well. Since 1998 the poverty rate in Palestinian territories has increased from 23% to 67% and the national GDP has declined by 40%. The statistics show that the situation is spiraling towards chaos.

The bleak humanitarian situation in Palestine is bad for the United States as well. The Arab population will be quick to blame the United States for the Palestinian situation due to its close ties with the Israelis. The United States has to be weary of the consequences of its’ relationship with Israel as the Palestinian situation worsens.

[Chestine Rosado]

In his latest blog, Ambassador Walker brings up an Israeli project that with time will surely make Jerusalem a permanent part of Israel cutting the Palestinians off from accessing it. This project is literally creating a wall around Jerusalem that is constructed to prevent Palestinians from gaining access to the region. According to what Ambassador Walker accounts in his blog, Arik Sharon had a vision that would tie Palestine together but as the project continues to be completed, the intentions behind the separate high ways and the cut off of Palestinian access to Jerusalem become a clear indication of Israelis attempt to claim settlements and gain full and permanent control over Jerusalem.
One of the most troubling issues that are brought up is that the United States saw the Israeli settlements over smaller areas and instead of steping, they concentrated on the overall objective being to establish peace between both groups. I feel that the United States should have at least put some pressure on the Israelis and negotiated with Sharon on an alternative to building these tunnels and high ways that will separate both groups and possibly stall the peace process indefinitely. America has in turn turned their face and allowed Israel to make Jerusalem “the undivided eternal capital of Israel.” Yet again, Israel is being allowed to take more land from the Palestinians, at this rate is it even possible to stop Israel? Has the U.S turned its face to many times that now they can’t stop the completion of this wall in order to prevent another war? After all, according to a New York Times article in 2004, despite the fact that the UN voted that the project of building the wall be abandoned, no one really stepped in as Israel continued as planned. Now, three years later and almost completed, is there really anything anyone can do other than prepare for a Palestinian retaliation?

[John Kibbe]

In July of 1980, Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin released a written document regarding the Basic Law in the city of Jerusalem. In one particular section of the document titled ‘Protection of Holy Places’, the document states that holy areas of Jerusalem shall be protected from “anything likely to violate the freedom of access of the members of the different religions to the places sacred to them or their feelings towards those places”. The current construction of divided roads, however, clearly show that drastic changes that have occurred in the twenty-eight years since this document was published. Israel, with little resistance from the US, has gradually expanded more and more into the West Bank, all while increasing its control over Jerusalem. As stated in the New York Times article from last August, this new road will prevent Palestinians from traveling into Jerusalem, and more importantly East Jerusalem, without special permits. Even without any major international delineation, Israel’s construction of this new divided road seems to bring a sense of permanence to the Jerusalem issue.
The major problem with this construction, however, centers on what hasn’t changed in the last twenty-eight years. Jerusalem is the still the third holiest city in the Islamic religion, and Palestinians remain hopeful that East Jerusalem will be the site for the capital of a Palestinian state. As Israel continues to overlook the need for negotiation over the issue of Jerusalem and make control over the capital permanent, the unlikelihood of bringing peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also becoming permanent. That is why it is essential that the United States, and other world peacekeeping organizations like the United Nations, stop taking a backseat to Israel’s disregard for negotiations over Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is pertinent not only to American interests in the West Bank, but in the entire Middle East. The area is influential on the issue of terrorism, so it is very important that the United States take the initiative to ensure that the necessary measures are taken for achieving peace.

[Johanna Sanchez]

In their plan on peacekeeping resolutions between Israel and Palestine, the United States lacks to identify the importance of Jerusalem in this ongoing struggle. Ambassador Walker states “ we have been particularly passive when it comes to Jerusalem…it has always been inconvenient to press the Israelis on what was seen as the secondary question of the settlements when the more important issue of a final peace agreement was at stake.” The city of Jerusalem is a symbol of faith for the Arabs, Jews and Christians. By Israel blocking access to the Palestinians, it adds to the sentiment of Israeli territorial expansion, and to take away what the Palestinians feel belong to them. The symbol of sacredness of Jerusalem must not be restricted to anyone, doesn’t matter, religion, race or ethnicity.
The United States doesn’t focus on Jerusalem so as to not upset Israel. But finalizing the issue of the settlements will not reach an agreement. Jerusalem is the sensitive argument in this dispute and it holds the decision in the final agreement. Israelis feel that the wall increase the security within the borders, but when Palestinians feel that if they’ve lost what is most sacred to them, the repercussions will be unimaginable. The United States should act as a mediator who looks at both sides of the argument. By neglecting the needs of the Palestinians, not only the lives of Israeli citizens are in danger, but also all those that to this day have agreed with Israeli actions.

[Philip Holdredge]

For outsiders watching the negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israeli government, it must seem odd that there have been numerous opportunities to achieve peace, but neither side has managed to take advantage of the opportunities. I think people can not conceive of an intense attachment to any one place--a place that is worth stubburnly holding out for as continued conflict contributes to domestic stability. This is particularly true for the Palestinians, who are often seen as being in the most desperate situation and should consider themselves fortunate to get any piece of territory, as well as the opportunity to pursue self-governance unobstructed by Israeli intervention. Nonetheless, the Palestinians are unwilling to trade Jerusalem, exemplified by Arafat at the Camp David negotiations.

Both sides know that they are unwilling to give up Jerusalem and that the other side will not either. The problem with this is that even knowing this, the sides do not totally negotiate in good faith when they refuse to negotiate about the status of Jerusalem, because they know that no matter what they put on the negotiating table, if Jerusalem is not included, the other side will not accept this. This impasse has undeniably worked in the favor of Israel, which has been able to continuously expand its control over Jerusalem. Israel is in a power position that allows it to do this, largely by its close relationship with the US. The US is unwilling to push Israel on this issue, continues to provide overwhelming financial support for Israel, and frequently prevents the passage of UN condemnations of Israeli actions. This continued inaction will certainly remove the Palestinians from the communities in Jerusalem. As the blog states, the US should plan for this, but it seems that nothing will separate the US from its close bond with Israel enough to allow the US to effectively pressure Israel to do what it needs to do--negotiate over Jerusalem in good faith.