A Note to Hillary on Jerusalem Disunited

The American Prospect: By Gershom Gorenberg

An open letter to Hillary Clinton, telling her what life is really like in Jerusalem and informing her that her stand on uniting the city isn't half the plan her husband proposed in 2001.

Dear Hillary,

A colleague alerted me to your recent position paper on Israel, with your promise of support for an 'undivided Jerusalem.' I appreciate the warm feelings, but I admit I was confused by your description of my city. Since you are a careful, wonky candidate, I figured you must have details at your disposal. So this morning I called a Palestinian cabby friend, and together we went looking for the 'undivided Jerusalem.'" ...

Let me suggest a more honest and more honorable position on Israel: The greatest contribution that America can make to Israeli security is to help it reach peace with the Palestinians, and as president you will resume that effort where it was abandoned in 2001. If asked about Jerusalem, say that the sides will have to come to an agreement, and you are committed to help them do so. The Clinton parameters are still a good basis for that. If you don't take this position, I hope that your Democratic rivals do. It would make me more hopeful about the future of my fractured city.

Heavenly Jerusalem

Haaretz : By Yair Sheleg

Imagine that the following institutions are located in Jerusalem: An international court; an international dialogue center for the three, monotheistic religions; an academic center to promote leadership of the Jewish people; an international software development center that focuses on Jewish subjects; and a museum of the Jewish people. These are only a few of the programs that will be presented to the cabinet to mark Jerusalem Day in conjunction with an effort to 'strengthen the standing of Jerusalem as the civilizational capital of the Jewish people.'

This is not a utopian vision but a plan supported by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI), a respected think tank led by Professor Yehezkel Dror, an Israel Prize winner and Winograd Commission member.

Just Jerusalem

MIT:

Just Jerusalem is an international competition calling for innovative visions for the city of Jerusalem and what it might be if justice and urban livability, rather than competing nationalist projects, were the principle points of departure. The goal of the organizers is not to produce a contemporary master plan for the city, but to solicit entries that envision Jerusalem, real and symbolic, as a just, peaceful, and sustainable city by the year 2050. The year 2050 is not an arbitrary point in time so much as a metaphor for a future far enough from the present conflict to allow some freedom to imagine a different situation, but near enough to generate serious deliberation. Entries are not limited to architects and urbanists, but rather, will also be elicited from artists, historians, poets, political scientists, philosophers, economists, engineers, and all others who have ideas for the future of the city. We strive for a plurality of voices and encourage multi-disciplinary teams.

Clashing values alter Jerusalem's face

Clashing values alter a city's face - Los Angeles Times:

NOVELIST and playwright Naomi Ragen already has fled two neighborhoods to avoid emerging ultra-Orthodox majorities. Now Ramot Allon's most famous resident is thinking about leaving Jerusalem altogether. ...

A modern Orthodox Jew raised in New York, Ragen shudders at billboards in central Jerusalem admonishing women to wear long skirts, long sleeves and buttoned-up collars in public.

"People here misconstrue Jewish law, radicalize it beyond recognition and call that 'being more religious,' " she said.

The author is building a home in the Galilee and said she might live there full time.

She has thought about the consequences of Jerusalem's Jewish flight and growing Palestinian population. Palestinians and haredim would increasingly dominate the city and might get along just fine, she said with a tone of irony.

"Their women tend to dress alike, all covered up. That could be a recipe for harmony."

"I love Jerusalem," she added, turning serious. "I hate to see the city turned into a fundamentalist backwater…. But it will always be my touchstone, the center of my religion, even if now is not a particularly good time for me to live here."

From a three part series on Jerusalem in the LA Times.

A World Apart Within 15 Minutes

APN : Just pehaps...Jerusalem would turn from a problem into a solution

APN:Middle East Peace Reports:RETHINKING JERUSALEM:

An op-ed by Moshe Amirav, who recently published a book entitled Jerusalem Syndrome, suggests that the time might be ripe for Israelis to re-imagine the fate of Jerusalem. He writes that "as a paratrooper who was injured in 1967 in the battle for the liberation of Jerusalem and hoped to combine both objectives – a united city and a city of peace – I now feel disappointment and pain. My city is not united and has become a 'city of dispute.

'Perhaps we should try to accept Jerusalem as it is: A multicultural, inter-religious and bi-national city? Perhaps Jerusalem is secretly laughing in its heart of hearts, mockingly looking from the heights of history upon the new Israelis who seek to make it into something that it is not, and will never be? Perhaps dividing Jerusalem, as a political program, will achieve more for us, the Israelis, than the anachronistic program of unifying Jerusalem? And what would we lose if the Old City were to turn into a place where we are partners rather than owners? How terrible would it be if such a small portion, less than one percent of the capital's area, would be given an international status? What would happen?

'This is what would happen: Jerusalem would turn from a problem into a solution. If we turn Jerusalem into the great key to the conflict, in its broader sense, not only the political sense, new vistas will be opened to us. Jerusalem can be the key to the heart of the Muslim world, to reconciliation with the Arab states, to peace with the Palestinians.'(Yedioth Ahronoth, 5/16/07)

Jerusalem: Vision for a place of peace

By Alice Shalvi*

JERUSALEM - Jerusalem is holy to three major monotheistic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Therein lies its unique glory. Therein lies its tragedy. For well over a millennium Jerusalem has been a battleground, the scene of wars and terrible bloodshed inspired primarily by religious fervour, to which, in more recent times, has been added the single-minded ardour of nationalist aspiration. The city's numerous shrines, erected by Jews, Christians and Muslims, have in turn been desecrated and/or destroyed by adherents to rival faiths.

To many, the situation seems hopeless. Yet it may be precisely in the sanctity of the city in the theology of the different religions that a solution to the conflict could be found. Its origin lies in the city's geography as this has developed over the centuries and particularly during the long period of Ottoman rule, from 1517 to 1917, during which both the Jewish and Muslim communities grew and were active, separate but (almost) equal. By the time the British arrived in 1917 the city was a conglomerate of districts or neighbourhoods, each with its distinctive character and most of them with a fairly, but not totally, homogeneous population. In the Old City, these included the Jewish Quarter, the Armenian Quarter, the Christian Quarter, the Muslim Quarter, a small Moorish Quarter and so on. Outside the Old City walls were, inter alia, a German Colony built by the Templars, a Greek Colony, an Italian Colony, an American Colony. The Jews spread out to the west and south; the Arabs to the north and east of the Old City. There are at present virtually no neighbourhoods with a mixed population of Arabs and Jews. Every district has its own churches, mosques or synagogues.

When the British mandatory authorities appointed a municipal council, they (rightly) based representation on religious identity -- two Muslims, two Christians, two Jews. Later this became an elected body, to which each of twelve constituencies, six Arab and six Jewish, each elected one counsellor. The guiding principle of this mode of government was the "conscious alignment of people's nationalities with specific areas" of the city.

In November 1947, when the United Nations proposed a two-state partition of Palestine, it excluded Jerusalem from the division of the territory. Instead, it recommended that Jerusalem be a corpus separatum under UN auspices.

A combination of the UN proposal with the British model of municipal government could create a solution to the problem of Jerusalem -- a solution which, if accepted and implemented in a spirit of mutual tolerance and goodwill, with full respect for the beliefs of "the other" and a readiness to forgo exclusive sovereignty in favour of constructive collaboration, might finally put an end to the enduring conflict. But this "separate entity" should not be under UN trusteeship, any more than the Vatican is. In fact, the Vatican's autonomy, its sovereign status, could well be our model.

Jerusalem is still composed of neighbourhoods that are fairly homogeneous in terms of ethnic origin and background, countries of origin and religious practice. It would not be difficult to establish twelve or more constituencies, each of which would be autonomous and responsible for certain aspects of the lives of its residents. Each of the neighbourhoods or "boroughs" would send elected representatives to a central municipal council, which would be responsible for all matters relating to the city as a whole (transportation, town planning, sanitation, municipal parks, etc.). Separateness need not result in alienation; equality can produce fruitful cooperation and collaboration.

All this applies to Greater Jerusalem. The Old City requires a solution of its own and that could well be found in an in parvo version of the neighbourhood council, one based on equal representation of each and every one of the religious denominations that reside within its walls, who would join together to propose a just distribution of space and to determine the times of day, of the week, of the year when each of the holy places would be accessible to each of the various religions and sects that at present lay exclusive claim to the holy sites of their respective faiths. A Jerusalem Inter-Religious Council would be mandated to determine such a modus vivendi and, thereafter, with ensuring its observance by all concerned.

Some kind of external moderating mediation may be necessary to ensure fair play and equity; but that is a far cry from the internationalisation proposed in 1947. Jerusalem should be autonomous, self-regulatory, self-governing, with no outside intervention by religious authorities outside the city. Not the functionaries of the various religions, but the common folk, the practitioners, should be in charge. This would also give a voice to women, who are currently silenced in virtually all of the religions. Jerusalemites and only Jerusalemites must develop their own separate peace. They must fully internalise the truth of W. H. Auden's famous imperative "We must love one another or die."


* Alice Shalvi is a feminist and social activist who has lived in Jerusalem since 1949. This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service (CGNews) and can be accessed at www.commongroundnews.org.

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 26 April 2007 Copyright permission is granted for publication.