The Israel-Palestine difference and the many views
There are many academic and non-academic articles in many languages
about the Israel-Palestine difference. Today we focus on academic studies about
this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE.
Today, the post includes several interesting articles and studies that
offer a variety of views about the same difference.
- The first document introduces the key elements in law and realpolitik. The factsheet by BICOM (British Israel Communications and Research Centre) offers a very brief insight into the Israel-Palestine difference focusing on Jerusalem.
- The second article introduces “Donald Trump’s Generous Offer on Jerusalem.” Until very recent, Jerusalem was not a de jure capital for Israel or Palestine. At best, it was the de facto capital of Israel. The article explores Trump’s recent announcement.
- The third article presents a research conducted by CIA back in 1978. It only came to the open in 2013. “Jerusalem: Some Aspects of a Complex Problem” concluded compromise between the opposing parties is unlikely.
- The fourth article reviews the significance of the sovereignty question which is legal and political in nature. A concept that can play a role in a future solution by having an ample conception of “sovereignty”: internationalization.
- “Is Jerusalem Really Negotiable?” brings a fifth analysis. The positive outcome seems to be the acknowledgement the Israel-Palestine difference is not a zero-sum game. Yet, negotiation is an international dispute settlement procedure that cannot guarantee a solution.
Last but not least, I include a link to a final article that presents
the US views about the dispute by examining presidential speeches from Clinton to Obama.
History and politics of Jerusalem (2017)
Briefing by BICOM (British Israel
Communications and Research Centre)
“Israelis and
Palestinians both claim Jerusalem as their capital. The State of Israel has
proclaimed Jerusalem to be the “undivided, eternal capital of Israel” and
maintains its primary governmental institutions there. The Palestine Liberation
Organisation (PLO) ultimately foresees the eastern part of the city as the
capital of the State of Palestine. The international community has accepted the
de facto application of Israeli law in West Jerusalem while the claim to
internationalise Jerusalem is not seriously raised anymore.”
“There are no legal documents that clearly resolve the status of
Jerusalem. The Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles (DoP), signed
between Israel and the PLO in September 1993, leaves open the status of
Jerusalem. Article V of the DoP says that the permanent status of Jerusalem is
one of the issues to be agreed by both parties in bilateral negotiations.”
Donald Trump’s Generous Offer on Jerusalem
Editorial
Jerusalem Quarterly
“We write this editorial
as Israel celebrates, and the rest of the world condemns, Donald Trump’s declaration
of U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is pertinent to
recall on this issue Arthur Koestler’s famous quip, made a century ago in
reference to the Balfour Declaration, that “one nation solemnly promised to a
second nation the country of a third.”
“Two unintended
consequences emerge from the new U.S. position: first, it brings the status of
Jerusalem back to the limelight, after it was pushed to the back burner by the Syrian
and Yemeni wars; and second, it has clearly placed the United States outside of
the international consensus with regard to any future peace process over the
status of the city, or indeed within the Arab-Israeli conflict. This has opened
the door to other global and regional actors, particularly Europe, Russia, and
Turkey, as future mediators.”
“Underlying the
objections of the majority of countries, including the United States until recently
(that is, until Trump’s election), to Israeli control of Jerusalem has been UN
General Assembly resolution 181, which affirmed the partition plan for
Palestine and the creation of an international zone in Jerusalem known as the corpus separatum. That notion established in the city a special
international regime in which both Palestinians and Israelis would have a dual
national identity in the city. Given the slow death of the peace process and
the de facto withdrawal of the United States from a mediating role, is it time
– seventy years later – to revive this plan for Jerusalem?”
Jerusalem: Some
Aspects of a Complex Problem
A research Paper
(Original: 1978. Approved for release CIA historical collections
division November 2013)
"There are some Israelis who would give up the Golan,
some Israelis who would give up the Sinai, and some would give up the West
Bank. But I do not think that
you can find any Israelis who are willing to give up Jerusalem."-Mayor
Teddy Kolleri (July 1977).”
“The oficial
position of the PLO toward Israel has continued to be insistence on the
replacement of the state of Israel with a multiracial secular state.”
“In sum, the
positions of the parties on the Israelis have not significantly altered the status
of question of sovereignty, over
Jerusalem are irreconcilable. Without dramatic and fundamental form political changes in Israel, the Arab states,
or both, any compromise on Jerusalem appears unlikely.”
Sovereignty in
Jerusalem
Catholic University Law Review
“States recognizing Israel have not recognized Israeli
sovereignty over either the western or eastern sector of Jerusalem, despite
nearly half a century of Israeli control in West Jerusalem, and nearly thirty
years in East Jerusalem.”
“Regarding West Jerusalem, states maintaining
diplomatic relations with Israel have avoided locating their embassies there, placing
them instead in Tel Aviv, precisely because they consider the status of
Jerusalem to be undetermined. As for East Jerusalem, objection to Israel's
control is exhibited through collective criticism of Israel at the United
Nations.”
“To assert its legitimacy in Palestine, Israel relies
primarily on the 1947 General Assembly resolution, but this resolution yields
no argument for sovereignty in Jerusalem,75 since the resolution proposed internationalization.”
“From the standpoint of territorial right, as this
notion is understood in international law, Palestine has a valid claim to
Jerusalem. That does not mean that it could not agree to a solution whereby the
City would be internationalized, or whereby it would be divided or controlled
jointly. Jerusalem is one issue among several to be resolved between Palestine
and Israel, and the parties are free to make concessions on one issue in order
to gain an advantage on another.”
Is Jerusalem
Really Negotiable?
Jewish Political Studies Review
“Despite the many proposals for negotiating the Jerusalem
issue, any agreed plan for resolving the future status of the Holy City has
defied generations of negotiators.
Israel’s formal position proved paradoxical. While the
Oslo Agreements in September 1993 made Jerusalem one of the subjects for the
permanent status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin made clear in his final Knesset address in October 1995
that Jerusalem was to remain united under Israeli sovereignty. But by formalizing
past understandings with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan over its role in the
administration of the Muslim holy sites, through instruments like the
Washington Declaration, he appeared to be drawing a distinction between sovereignty
over Jerusalem, which in his view had to be retained by Israel, and an international
administrative role for the holy sites, which he was prepared to explore with
Israel’s eastern neighbor.
Thus, while insisting on Israeli sovereignty over a
united Jerusalem, he did not view the issue of Jerusalem as a “zero sum game.”
Final article
for the reader (ref. presidential speeches from Clinton to Obama)
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State
Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous
published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the
author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and
Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT
POST: What do Israelis and Palestinians want?
Tuesday 03rd December 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment