The Endgame: International Jerusalem
By Cameron Hunt
06 December, 2010
Countercurrents.org
Many have been greatly heartened by the recent recognition of the ‘State of Palestine’ by Brazil, in a letter sent to Palestinian Authority (PA) President, Mahmoud Abbas, on 1 December 2010. In that letter, the Brazilian Government recognized the “Palestinian State based on the existing borders in 1967”, “in line with UN resolutions, which have demanded an end to the occupation of Palestinian territories and the construction of an independent State within the borders of 4 June 1967”. Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has since confirmed recognition, stating: “Over one hundred countries have recognized the Palestinian State. Among them, all of the Arab countries and most of the African, Asian and Eastern European ones. Countries that maintain fluid relations with Israel – such as Russia, China, South Africa and India, among others – have [also] recognized the Palestinian State… Most instances of recognitions followed the Declaration of Independence adopted by the Palestinian National Council in November 1988”.
Although this further recognition of the Palestinian State “within the borders of 4 June 1967” may seem like a real step forward for Middle East peace, just one Cable recently made public by WikiLeaks is enough to put paid to any informed optimism. In a ‘Confidential’ Cable of 18 April 2007, titled “CODEL ACKERMAN'S MEETING WITH OPPOSITION LEADER BINYAMIN NETANYAHU”, the current Prime Minister of Israel informed the Chairman of the US House ‘Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee’, Mr Gary Ackerman, that “a return to the 1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem was not a solution since further withdrawals would only whet the appetite of radical Islam. Ackerman [then] asked if the Palestinians would accept peace based on the 1967 lines. Netanyahu said he would not agree to such a withdrawal since the 1967 lines were indefensible”. Given this, it would seem that Mr Netanyahu’s response to the question of whether “the Palestinians would accept peace based on the 1967 lines”, is neither yes or no, but that he himself “would not agree to such a withdrawal”.
Mr Netanyahu went on to explain in that Meeting of 11 April 2007, that “there was a growing sense in the [Israeli] public that he had been right... Unilateral ‘retreats’ (i.e. such as the withdrawals from Gaza and southern Lebanon) were the wrong way to go. Israel had allowed an Iranian enclave to establish itself in Gaza… The way out was to stop Iran”. Mr Netanyahu further asserted that United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 242 “was not a bad formula since it did not specify precisely from which territories [captured in June 1967] Israel would withdraw”. However, a less blinkered reading of UNSC resolution 242 would see it state: “The Security Council, … Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war…, Affirms that … the fulfilment of [UN] Charter principles requires … the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [of June 1967]; (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency”. That same resolution also “Affirms further the necessity … For achieving a just settlement of the [Palestinian] refugee problem”.
Irrespective of the number of governments that have now recognized a Palestinian State within the borders of 4 June 1967, anyone sincere about peace in the Middle East should consider the likelihood of Israel ever ‘retreating’ to those borders. During such considerations, they should also take into account the fact that under US Law (since 1995) “Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and … Jerusalem should remain an undivided city”. As such, it would seem that Netanyahu has a very powerful friend – somewhat bound by its own laws – with whom to reject any settlement based on the 4 June 1967 borders. In its most recent affirmation of the ‘Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995’, the US Congress adopted resolution 271 of 29 April 2010, in which it “congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 43rd anniversary of the reunification of that historic city”, and “calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to repeatedly affirm publicly, as a matter of United States policy, that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel”. In that same resolution, the US Congress “reaffirms Israel's right to take necessary steps to prevent any future division of Jerusalem”.
As would be expected, Mr Netanyahu’s position on the ‘Right of Return’ of Palestinian refugees was also discussed with Mr Ackerman in their Meeting of 11 April 2007, and documented in the leaked Cable. The Right of Return, a Palestinian Right under customary international law, was something that Mr Netanyahu referred to as “the real acid test of Arab intentions”. He told Mr Ackerman that “Israel will only have a peace partner when the Palestinians drop the right of return. Asked whether Israel could accept case by case exceptions, Netanyahu insisted not one refugee could ever return.”
Although there are indeed a few Israeli leaders with positions to the Left of Mr Netanyahu, it is important to note that not even those leaders have come out in support of any Palestinian Right of Return. The closest an Israeli leader has come to such support was in a statement made by Mr Ehud Olmert to Mr Mahmoud Abbas in a meeting on 13 September 2008, that although he did not recognize the Palestinian ‘Right of Return’, he would be willing to accept between 2,000 and 3,000 Palestinian refugees into Israel as a “humanitarian gesture”, upon the conclusion of a final status agreement. A ‘gesture’ that would acknowledge approximately 0.06 per cent of today’s more than 5 million Palestinian refugees.
Interestingly, it was at that very same secret meeting between Mr Olmert and Mr Abbas, that Mr Olmert made the most generous Israeli proposal ever to the Palestinians, regarding Jerusalem. Under this proposal, “The Holy Basin of Jerusalem [comprising of the Old City and its surrounding religious sites] would be under no sovereignty at all and administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans”. That proposal established Mr Olmert as the first Israeli leader ever to discuss the possibility of internationalizing Jerusalem. In the past few months, Mr Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister and leader of the Israeli Labour Party, made an almost identical proposal: “West Jerusalem and 12 Jewish neighborhoods [of East Jerusalem] … will be ours. The Arab neighborhoods [of East Jerusalem] … will be theirs. There will be a special regime in place along with agreed upon arrangements in the Old City, the Mount of Olives and the City of David”. The PA President, Mr Abbas, was silent on Mr Barak’s proposal, having already rejected the earlier proposal by Mr Olmert with the following words: “I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem”. During an interview with the Washington Post on 27 May 2009, Mr Abbas insisted that his only role now was to wait: “I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements… Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality … the people are living a normal life”.
Given the positions of both (/all three) parties on the future status of Jerusalem, it would appear that the so-called ‘peace talks’ between the Israelis and Palestinians have now reached their Endgame. It should be clear to the Palestinians by now that the best outcome they can possibly hope to achieve in any future agreement with Israel-USA – an incredibly optimistic outcome premised upon a major shift to the Left in Israeli politics and substantial growth in international support – is for the Palestinian Right of Return to be rejected in its entirety, and for the Holy Basin of Jerusalem to be internationalized and managed by a consortium including Israel and the US, along with the Palestinians. What Israel-USA have apparently failed to comprehend however, is that the Palestinian leadership has no interest in any state that does not include the Holy Basin/Old City of East Jerusalem as part of its capital; let alone a state falling short of that demand which would nonetheless require them to renounce the Right of Return (on behalf of more than 5 million Palestinian refugees).
As more and more recognitions of the State of Palestine are declared over the coming months, and as the Israelis come to realize that they are losing their grip on East Jerusalem, regardless of unqualified US support – a realization that has already hit Messrs Olmert and Barak – it isn't particularly difficult to predict that at that moment, the government of Israel will then begin to call for the internationalization of at least part of Jerusalem; as has already been proposed by some forward-thinking Israeli leaders. Ironically, it will be one of the few times that Israel will have international law on its side, given Jerusalem’s legal status: “corpus separatum under a special international regime”. Sadly for the Palestinian refugees, so-long kept in camps as the Arab World’s most potent bargaining chip, the battle for Jerusalem shall at that moment transform from one of ‘Palestine v. Israel-USA’, to ‘Palestine v. The World’. Given that 33 per cent of the World’s population is at least nominally Christian – to which we could add the 0.23 per cent constituted by World Jewry – the internationalization of Jerusalem shouldn’t be a particularly hard sell for them at that moment.
In the past days, Mr Abbas has again hinted at dissolving the PA if the current round of ‘talks’ fail. If indeed the best that the PA can reasonably hope for in any future negotiations is an ‘International Jerusalem’, and no Right of Return whatsoever, why wouldn’t the PA adopt ‘The No-State Alternative’ proposed in my earlier Article of the same name, and dissolve the ‘State of Israel’ along with the PA? Yes, Jerusalem would be internationalized either way, but under the No-State proposal, the Right of Return of millions of Palestinian refugees would be fulfilled in its entirety. Should Mr Abbas continue waiting, and continue to insist that “in the West Bank we have a good reality”, it will quickly become apparent that those millions of Palestinian refugees not enjoying the good life in the West Bank represent little more than an agenda item to the Arab leadership.
Cameron Hunt is the author of Pax UNita - A novel solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict
