Ghada Karmi (Ed.), 1996, Ithaca Press, Hb 256Pp, £25.00, Pb 214Pp, £12.95
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Jerusalem Today: What Future for the Peace Process?, Ghada Karmi (ed.), 1996, Ithaca Press, hb 256pp, £25.00, pb 214pp, £12.95 This volume is the first product of an independent body of "ordinary people who... cared about the fate of Jerusalem", known as the International Campaign for Jerusalem (ICJ), headed by the editor of this book, Dr Ghada Karmi, who also wrote its introduction. In June 1995, a conference was held in London to discuss Jerusalem from various aspects. Professor Edward Said gave the keynote address to the audience. With his usual eloquence and thought provoking essays, Said first turns to lament the collective incompetence of Pales- tinians who have failed to record the story of Jerusalem's loss in 1948 and 1967. He noted that there has been no Palestinian narrative of 1948 and after to challenge the dominant Is- raeli narrative (p. 5). It seems that Said was echoing Israel Shahak's thoughts on Israel's fal- sification of the history of Jerusalem and Palestine (p. 127) that need to be challenged by the other party. Correctly so, one may note that there is not a single Arab university or a research insti- tute that has built a special department specializing in Jerusalem's history, geography, reli- gious sites, archaeology, etc. to counter Israel's narrative. Israel has at least a dozen of such institutes that only deal with Jerusalem. Edward Said, and rightly so, noted that "Palestinian leaders have always been misunder- stood, particularly at times like this, when Israel depends so heavily on the virtual absence of Palestinian voices, counter representations, and strategies" (p. 16). It is no wonder, one may add, that Israel's aggressive colonization process in and around Jerusalem in particular has coincided with the Oslo process when the Israelis discovered that the Palestinian nego- tiators in Oslo had no strategic approach in those negotiations. Said emphasized that Jerusalem is so central to Palestine itself and central to the ideolog- ical struggle against Zionism. If it is lost, he warned, "then peace in this generation is not at hand" (p. 21). The editor categorized the papers presented into four major parts. The first part, dealing with the legal status of Jerusalem, incorporates two papers presented by two experienced lawyers. John Quigley, professor of law at Ohio State University, presented a well researched and carefully documented paper entitled "Jerusalem in international law". As in his previ- ous works, Quigley does not truncate the issue of Jerusalem as separate and distinct from the entire spectrum of the conflict. Title to Jerusalem and the legal status of Jerusalem are not viewed as separate from the Palestinian people's claim to the territory of Palestine in- cluding Jerusalem. Quigley asserts that the Palestinian territory is a territory that fell under Israel's military occupation, by the belligerent occupation authority. Hence, Israel's thin tech- niques of annexing parcels of that occupied territory under the pretext of expanding the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, does not undermine the legal status of Jerusalem as an integral part of an occupied territory. Professor Quigley demolishes Israel's argument that because it was acting in the June 1967 war in self-defence it has gained legitimate title to the territory it occupied including Jerusalem. Quigley argues persuasively that international law does not recognize the right of any bel- ligerent occupant to the territory it occupies whether in defensive or aggressive war. In nei- ther situation does the occupying power gain sovereignty over that territory. This prescrip- tion applies to the occupied Palestinian territory including Jerusalem. Mr Rodwan Bundy's article on "Legal approaches to the question of Jerusalem" has arbi- trarily reduced the entire issue to "a question of demarcation" of boundaries (p. 45). One should recall that soon after the June war of 1967, President L. B. Johnson asked Prime Min- ister Levy Eshkol to define the boundaries that Israel wanted to be secured. He received no reply. One should also recall the debate that the representatives of the Jewish settlers in Pales- tine had two days before they declared a "Jewish State" on 15 May 1948. In that debate, Ben Gurion refused to identify the boundaries of the new state, and refused to accept the de- limitation set out in the Partition Resolution of 1947. In that meeting, Moshe Shertok (later Sharette), supporting Ben Gurion's position said: "we do not, in fact, intend to observe that resolution in all its details".' In the last fifty years, the evasive position of Israel on the defini- tion of its boundaries is still intact. In summary, it is not, as Bundy attempted to simplify it, a question of boundary. It is a relentless drive for expansion and creeping annexation. Another over simplified issue raised by Mr Bundy is his support to the idea of arbitrat- ing the status of Jerusalem as in the Taba arbitration. Yet he doubts that Israel would ever agree to the idea but without explaining to us why. Mr Bundy is probably aware that all at- tempts to solicit an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Palestinian Question were systematically frustrated by the major powers, with the influence of the Jew- ish Agency representatives, ever since the Partition Resolution of 1947 was debated in the UN General Assembly. Furthermore, Bundy must be also aware that when Israel acceded to the ICJ's jurisdiction it did so with the exclusion of virtually all matters relating to the Pales- tinian Question. This move establishes a fact that Israel would not accept the rule of law on any aspect of its conflict with the Palestinians. Mr Bundy examines briefly the traditional roots of title to territory known in international law such as occupation and control, state succession, prescriptive rights, historical claims, etc. He found that none of these is supportive of Israeli claim. Yet, he concludes that the de- ficiency in Israel's claim does not necessarily mean that the Palestinian claim is any better. This is a perplexing conclusion indeed. Part II deals with the ownership of Jerusalem viewed from three different angles. Uri Avneri, an Israeli peace activist and founder of the Gush Shalom (Peace Block), presented an Israeli view. Like other contributors to this part, he argues that Jerusalem should be "Our Jerusalem", meaning that it is a city for all Palestinians and Israelis, Muslims, Christians and Jews. In his views, Jerusalem should be the capital of two states: Jewish and Palestinian. Adnan Abu Odeh who served as Jordan's representative to the United Nations, presented a Jordanian view. While presenting an articulate thesis about Jerusalem, Abu Odeh fell inadvertently into the Israeli trap. Israel's position on Jerusalem has been consistently held that Jerusalem as a political question is not open for debate; however, from a religious point of view, Jerusalem is open. Mr Abu Odeh argues that the Old City, having incorporated all the holy shrines, should be separated form the rest of the city. It should be open for all "for it be- longs only to the One God". This thesis will ossify the burning political issue of Jerusalem into a religious myth - a thesis which fits squarely with Israel's. Rami Abdul Hadi, the Director of PASSIA, presents a Palestinian view. While he elabo- rated on the ten basic elements of the Jerusalem question, two points, in particular, are wor- thy of further elaboration. The enlargement of the Jerusalem boundaries is not only in- tended by Israel to change the character of these additional territories from being "occupied territory" into an "Israeli territory", it is also intended to dissect the Palestinian territory into more but less viable pockets. At present, no Palestinian can travel from Nablus or Ra- mallah to Hebron or Bethlehem without passing through Jerusalem. This passage needs an Israeli permit. The second point which deserves more elaboration was the issue of the waqf properties. While Abdul Hadi touched lightly on this type of property in Western Jerusalem (p. 71), he did not say a word about the mag�'properry in East Jerusalem. In one estimate, 80 per cent of the property in East Jerusalem is a Muslim or Christian waqf, a fact which es- tablishes beyond any doubt who really owns Jerusalem. Part III deals with the changing character of Jerusalem. The three articles falling under this part are well written and documented by three leading experts. Geoffrey Aronson, who publishes an excellent "Report on Israeli settlement in the Occupied Territories", Michael 1 See the text in The Palestinian Tom- of International Law, 4, 1987-1988, p. 265 at pp.279-281. .