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

[Matt Bachman]

Israel is currently constructing a divided highway through Jerusalem that allows Israelis to enter the holy city, but not Palestinians.
Jerusalem has always been the focal point of peace negotiations in the region, and Israel’s construction underscores a major difference between Israeli perception and the perception of the rest of the world regarding the appropriate steps toward permanent peace. The United States and the Arab world believe peace can only be achieved when Palestinians are awarded their own contiguous territory that is recognized and respected by Israel. In constructing a divided highway however, the Israelis have shown that they are not interested in granting Palestinians contiguous territory, but only in allowing for contiguous movement between Palestinian settlements. With that, Ambassador Walker predicts 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 highway is a permanent structure, but the U.S. must consider whether this is also a step toward permanent peace.
Surrounded settlements perceive a constant vulnerability and lash out with violent—even pre-emptive—attacks to defend their territory. Israel should know this better than anyone. In 1967 they were surrounded by six divisions of Arab forces and launched a pre-emptive assault on the Egyptian Air Force to begin The Six-Day War. Forty years later they are imposing a similar isolation on Palestinians by forbidding access to Jerusalem. Israel claims constructing a divided highway is a measure of self-defense. In reality it is a hypocritical pre-emptive measure to isolate the Palestinians and achieve a unilateral solution to the Jerusalem question.
Hypocrisy is a problem that plagues the United States in the Middle East. The U.S. cannot tacitly support Israel’s highway plan, knowing it is not a step toward long term peace in the region. Otherwise, the Arab world will continue to tacitly support acts of terrorism as a legitimate form of objection in the region.

-Matt Bachman

[Aidee Acosta]

When trying to solve conflicts in between two or more parties it is inevitable to consider the needs and wants of all parties involved. The road being built around Jerusalem seems like a good idea if both of the Palestinians and Israelis had the same access to Jerusalem or at least the same number of exits. It is imperative to consider that the land issues between the Palestinians and Israelis will become greater by building a wall in which access is somehow restricted to the Palestinians. I completely agree with the fact that if a final peace agreement was going to be reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis prior to the building of such road it will be nearly impossible.
The road restricting the Palestinian access to Jerusalem will not only result in more tension than it already exist but will be the cause of a more turbulent relationship. It will also minimize the chance of any possible reconciliation or agreement that could have occurred prior to the wall. The relationship between these two parties will in the long run become even worse because the Israelis are getting a privilege that the Palestinians are being denied and such settlement is occurring without the full consent of the Palestinians. The US administration will have a lot to do with the conflict that their settlement will create. Since it seems the administration is playing favorites when it is convenient to them and are not looking at the repercussions of their actions.

[Austin Finan]

Attempts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian peace process have been discussed ad nauseam and are likely to follow the same futile pattern. The remarkably obvious crux behind this eternal feud lies in two differing, absolutist ideologies, that when asked to coincide are able to do anything but. Understanding the intractable realities of the Judaism v. Islam (Israeli v. Palestinian) disconnect are essential to comprehending the imminent future of where many believe the cradle of civilization and mankind rest.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that there exists a demand for unequivocal entitlement to Jerusalem which has been expressed either overtly, or cloaked in political or otherwise “unrelated” masquerades. This road in question – which allows the Palestinians to travel throughout the West Bank and the Israelis to move about Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley – is a classic example of another hollow gesture which does not truly seek to mitigate the strained relationship between the two sides. Even with the construction of the road, restrictions on Palestinian travels are vast. Roadblocks, checkpoints, and limitations on available exit ramps greatly undermine the answers that sought to be provided by the road. Such obstacles, coupled with the construction of “mini cities” in the West Bank on the behalf of the Israelis, leaves the Palestinians with an unbalanced and unfair situation. If this trend continues (which seems likely) we will continue to witness a decline in the quality of Palestinian life and a severe restriction on their personal freedoms.

As the Palestinian situation continues to deteriorate and conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians remains unresolved, the Palestinians and the international community (which does not harbor the same pro-Israeli attitude as the U.S.) will likely grow increasingly critical of the U.S. and its efforts to aid Israel and ultimately fuel an endless battle.