Positions on Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Status of Jerusalem)
Jump to: navigation, search
Jerusalem icon small2.jpg
Jerusalem
v • d • e

Israel has de facto control over all of Jerusalem. However, there are many differing legal and diplomatic positions on Jerusalem.[1]

  • Since 1967, Israel has controlled all of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, which it then put under Israeli law and administration. The 1980 Jerusalem Law declared a "complete and united" Jerusalem its capital.[2] Within Israeli jurisprudence, Jerusalem is the de jure capital of the State of Israel.
  • The majority of UN member states and most international organisations do not accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital, nor Israel's incorporation of East Jerusalem (Jerusalem Law).[3] Embassies are generally located in Tel Aviv.
  • Others claim part or all of Jerusalem (Arabic: Al Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state.

Contents

[edit] Israeli position

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Since 1004 B.C. when King David established Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish nation, there has remained a constant and enduring Jewish presence in the city, as well as a vigorous spiritual attachment to the city."[4] Israel regards unified Jerusalem as the eternal, undivided capital of the State of Israel and of the Jewish people.[1] This consistent position has been the declared view of all Israeli governments, left-wing and right-wing.

Israel also maintains that only Israel has proven to be committed to freedom of worship for all. Israel notes that during the 19 year Jordanian occupation, all Jewish sites in the city were destroyed, desecrated, or isolated:

Israel also notes that these acts were committed in full view of United Nations observers who never intervened, nor were any agreements promising access to holy sites ever enforced. Israelis cite the recent destruction of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus and Shalom Al Israel synagogue in Jericho by Palestinians as examples of what will happen if the city comes under non-Israeli rule.

All Israeli governments since 1967 have encouraged large-scale construction projects in the eastern part of the city, resulting in the Jewish population of East Jerusalem, which is 24% of the Jewish population of the entire city. However, various Israeli governments have agreed to rationalization of the municipal borders of the city, in order to enable the outlying Arab quarters to be merged with Arab urban areas in the West Bank in order to become the capital of a future Palestinian state under the name of al-Quds.

Some Israeli Law experts claim that Israel has sovereignty over East Jerusalem, as well as over the rest of the West Bank since Jordan did not have a legal sovereignty over the territory, and thus Israel was entitled in an act of self defense during the Six Day War to "fill the vacuum". Israel's sovereignty over "West Jerusalem" is a result of the similar vacuum which was created when the British rule was over, and Israel's actions in 1948 constituted self-defense. [7]

In 1980, the Israeli Knesset approved a Basic Law, which is a foundational statute in the country's unwritten constitution. This 1980 law is entitled "Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel." The law establishes Jerusalem as the country's official capital. The Basic Law has four clauses. First, that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." Second, that "Jerusalem is the seat of the President of the State, the Knesset, the Government and the Supreme Court." The third clause deals with protection of "Holy Places" and the fourth clause deals with administrative matters.[8]

Consistent with the 1980 law, all the branches of Israeli government are seated in Jerusalem, including the Presidential, Legislative, Judicial, and Administrative branches. The city is also home to a number of important Israeli government buildings, including the Knesset and Israeli Supreme Court.

The Knesset building, Israel's parliament

Frontal view of The Supreme Court building

"Government Campus" consisting of the office building of Prime Minister of Israel, the building of Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, Finance Ministry and Ministry of Interior

The Orient House formerly used by Palestinian Authority

[edit] Palestinian position

The Palestinians claim Jerusalem (al-Quds) as the capital of a future Palestinian state. In the Palestine Liberation Organization's Palestinian Declaration of Independence of 1988, Jerusalem is stated to be the capital of the State of Palestine. In 2000 the Palestinian Authority passed a law designating East Jerusalem as such, and in 2002 this law was ratified by President Arafat. [9] [10] According to the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information, the official Palestinian position on Jerusalem includes four points: [11]

  • According to previously signed agreements with Israel, the status of "Jerusalem" (and not specifically East Jerusalem) is subject to permanent status negotiations.
  • Jerusalem should be an open city that is freely accessible, and should remain undivided regardless of the resolution of the question of sovereignty.
  • A Palestinian state would be committed to freedom of worship for all and take all measures to protect and safeguard sites of religious significance.

In the mid 1990s, a proposal was floated by Dr. Mahmoud Abbas (today the President of the Palestinian Authority) and Dr. Yossi Beilin (who served as an Israeli government minister in various periods during the 1990s), among others, under which the Palestinian urban mass of East Jerusalem, comprising of part of the eastern Jerusalem areas within the present municipal borders and urban areas currently part of the West Bank (such as Abu Dis and al-Eizariya), could be redefined as al-Quds, with the remaining Arab East Jerusalem residents being defined as Israeli residents and Palestinian citizens. These proposals did not constitute a plan to resolve the conflict over Jerusalem, as the status of the Old City, the most contentious aspect of the conflict, was not fully addressed.

[edit] United Nations position

The position of the United Nations on the question of Jerusalem is contained in General Assembly resolution 181(II), subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council concerning this question. A total of six UN Security Council resolutions on Israel have denounced or declared invalid Israel's annexation of the city. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. In an advisory opinion rendered on behalf of the General Assembly, the Court concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) had been established in breach of international law.[12]

The UN Security Council, in UNSC resolution 478, affirmed that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constituted a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. It also declared that the 1980 Jerusalem Law declaring unified Jerusalem, including annexed East Jerusalem, as Israel's "eternal and indivisible" capital was "null and void and must be rescinded forthwith" (14-0-1, with United States abstaining). The resolution advised member states to withdraw their diplomatic representation from the city as a punitive measure.

The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.[13] Before this resolution, thirteen countries maintained their embassies in Jerusalem: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, the Netherlands, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela. Following the UN resolution, all thirteen moved their embassies to Tel Aviv. Costa Rica and El Salvador moved theirs back to Jerusalem in 1984. Costa Rica moved its embassy back to Tel Aviv in 2006 followed by El Salvador a few weeks later.[14] [15] No international embassy remains in Jerusalem, although Paraguay and Bolivia have theirs in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb 10 km west of the city. [16]

The Netherlands maintains an office in Jerusalem serving mainly Israeli citizens. Other foreign governments base Consulate General offices in Jerusalem, including Greece, the United Kingdom and the United States. These consular offices primarily serve the Palestinian population of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and their Consuls General do not submit letters of credentials to the Israeli President or foreign ministry, but instead, deliver them to the administrative governor of Jerusalem.[17] Since the President of Israel resides in Jerusalem and confirms the foreign diplomats, the ambassadors have to travel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to submit letters of credentials upon being appointed.

[edit] European Union position

It is the EU's position that a fair solution should be found to the issue of Jerusalem, in the context of the two-state solution set out in the roadmap, taking into account the political and religious concerns of all parties.

The EU opposes measures which would prejudge the outcome of permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem, basing its policy on the principles set out in UN Security Council Resolution 242, notably the impossibility of acquisition of territory by force. The EU has stated it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders with regard to Jerusalem, unless agreed between the parties.

In 2009, the EU voiced a desire to see Jerusalem as "a capital of two states", referring to Israel and the State of Palestine.[18][19]

The EU is concerned that Israeli policies (settlements, demolitions of homes and evictions) are reducing the possibility of reaching an agreement on Jerusalem and are in violation of both Israel’s Roadmap obligations and international law.

The EU has also called for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, in accordance with the Road Map, in particular the Orient House and the Chamber of Commerce, and has called on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem, especially concerning work permits, access to education and health services, building permits, house demolitions, taxation and expenditure." [20] Concerning the current legal status of the city, the EU's position is that Jerusalem is a corpus separatum as outlined in United Nations resolution 181[21][22].

[edit] United States position

The United States, like other nations, maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv. The position of the US government is that it does not recognize all of Jerusalem to be part of Israel. [23]

President Bush stated in 1992, that the United States does not want to see Jerusalem "divided", and that its final status should be decided in negotiations. He stated in 1990, that the United States does not believe there should be new settlements in East Jerusalem. [24] The Obama administration has condemned expansion of the East Jerusalem settlement of Gilo, as well as evictions and house demolitions affecting Palestinians living in East Jerusalem. [25]

The US Congress has voiced views closer to the Israeli narrative on Jerusalem but has been unable to translate this position into actual legislation that affects any change in U.S. policy one way or the other. One proposal in particular, however, did eventually become enacted law and at the same time also managed to make inroads geared toward changing foreign policy was the passage of the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995. It clearly stated that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999" and are to be understood as components within the official U.S. foreign policy from then on. It's passage did not come with out introducing new controversies though.

The manner in which Congress had worded the law required a degree of flexibility to remain allotted exclusively at the discretion of the President and by design to the agencies under the Executive branch of the U.S. Federal government when it came to managing the foreign policy of the U.S. In order for the Embassy Act not to be interpreted as infringing upon the Constitutional powers granted to the President, the 1999 deadline did not have strong enough conditions to assure it would be met on time and the appropriations, planning and commitment normally needed to make such an operational move overseas such as the one to Jerusalem would have been was also omitted for the most part. In place of these, Congress only managed to force a bi-annual National Security review by Administration agencies regarding Jerusalem with the ultimate determination of moving forward in spite of the deadline having come and gone or not squarely at the discretion of the sitting President at the time of the review. Since the option for the President to suspend Embassy Act limitations came into effect in mid-1998 and the Fall of 2009, all three sitting Presidents during this time have collectively determined a total of 22 times not to proceed with starting the steps to move the Embassy. All three Presidents cited doing so would be contrary to maintaining regional stability as well as directly causing an increased threat to perceived U.S. national security. This dynamic was authored into the JE Act by Congress and has ultimately hindered not helped the positions frequently voiced by the U.S. Congress regarding the capital status of Jerusalem.

Developments since 1998 and the string of non-binding non-enacting resolutions that have come and gone from one session of Congress to the next have also managed to render the policy position outlining "capitol status" of Jerusalem in regards to Israel within official U.S. publications and other authorized U.S. documentation moot. One example challenged the well established State Department practice of populating the "Country of Birth" field on the Passports for U.S. nationals born in Jerusalem not with "Israel" arbitrarily but simply with "Jerusalem". A rider proposal attached to a 2002 Foreign Operations appropriations bill that passed into law again attempted ro usurp the President's Constitutional authority regarding matters of U.S. foreign policy when it attempted to mandate a move away form the State Department's attempt to remain impartial to the status of Jerusalem and any third-party perceptions of that and flat-out dictate a change in policy with new mandates for State Dept. passport practices. The Administration immediately rebuked the attempt in the Appropriation bill's signing statement, never moved to implement the new practice and was eventually born-out as within its privilage to do so by a district court with the dismissal of the legal challenge brought against the Secretary of the State in an attempt to force the Administration into implementing the change.

The U.S. Department of State maintains a Consulate General in Jerusalem. The Consulate is building an expansion in the neighborhood of Talpiot to provide visa and other consular services to residents of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Territories. The construction site is often mistaken as a site for the future US Embassy; however there are currently no plans to use this location in this manner. [26]

[edit] United Kingdom position

According to the United Kingdom, Jerusalem was supposed to be a corpus separatum, or international city administered by the UN. This was never set up: immediately after the UNGA resolution partitioning Palestine, Israel was attacked by Arab armies and defended itself, eventually capturing West Jerusalem. Jordan occupied East Jerusalem (including the Old City). The UK recognised the de facto control of Israel and Jordan, but not sovereignty. In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem, which the UK considers an illegal military occupation. The UK Embassy to Israel is in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. In East Jerusalem there is a Consulate-General, with a Consul-General who is not accredited to any state: this is an expression of the view that no state has sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The UK believes that the city’s status has yet to be determined, and maintains that it should be settled in an overall agreement between the parties concerned, but considers that the city should not again be divided. The Declaration of Principles and the Interim Agreement, signed by Israel and the PLO on 13 September 1993 and 28 September 1995 respectively, left the issue of the status of Jerusalem to be decided in the ‘permanent status’ negotiations between the two parties.

UK Foreign Office position on Jerusalem

[edit] Holy See position

The Holy See has expressed the position that Jerusalem should become an international city, either under the United Nations or a related organization. Pope Pius XII was the among the first to make such a proposal in the 1949 encyclical Redemptoris Nostri Cruciatus. This idea was later re-proposed during the papacies of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b "Brian Whitaker. "Rivals for holy city may have to turn to God." Guardian Unlimited. August 22, 2000; "Marilyn Henry. "Disney response on Jerusalem exhibit calms Arabs." Jerusalem Post Service October 1, 1999; Deborah Sontag. "Two Dreams of Jerusalem Converge in a Blur" New York Times. May 21, 2000.
  2. ^ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel
  3. ^ UN security Council Resolution 478 [1]
  4. ^ The Status of Jerusalem, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published March 14, 1999.
  5. ^ Fighting for the Jewish Quarter at Aish.com
  6. ^ The fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, p. 158, Regnery Publishing, 2007
  7. ^ Yehuda Z. Blum, "The Juridical status of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, The Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations, 1974);id., "The missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria", 3 Israel Law Review (1968), pages 279-301
  8. ^ Text of the Basic Law on Jerusalem
  9. ^ Arafat Signs Law Making Jerusalem Palestinian Capital, People's Daily, published October 6, 2002.
  10. ^ Arafat names Jerusalem as capital, BBC News, published October 6, 2002.
  11. ^ The Palestinian Official Position, Palestinian National Authority, Ministry of Information, copy from Archive.org, retrieved June 20, 2007.
  12. ^ Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
  13. ^ UN CHARTER, Article 25
  14. ^ Costa Rica to relocate embassy to TA, Jerusalem Post, published August 17, 2006.
  15. ^ El Salvador to move embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, People's Daily, published August 26, 2006.
  16. ^ Embassies and Consulates in Israel, Israel Science and Technology Homepage, retrieved June 20, 2007.
  17. ^ Country Profile: Israel
  18. ^ EU rebukes Israel for Jerusalem settlement expansion (EUObserver, Nov. 19, 2009)
    "If there is to be genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states."
  19. ^ EU: Jerusalem should be capital of two states (BBC, Dec. 8, 2009)
  20. ^ The EU & the Middle East Peace Process: FAQ, European Commission, retrieved June 20, 2007.
  21. ^ "Europe Affirms Support for a Corpus Separatum for Greater Jerusalem" http://www.fmep.org/reports/special-reports/israels-uncertain-victory-in-jerusalem/europe-affirms-support-for-a-corpus-separatum-for-greater-jerusalem
  22. ^ "Reaction by Foreign Minister Sharon on the EU stand on Jerusalem, 11 March 1999." http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations%20since%201947/1998-1999/149%20Reaction%20by%20Foreign%20Minister%20Sharon%20on%20the%20EU
  23. ^ CRS Report for Congress Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U.S. Policy Updated February 23, 2008 (page 38, 1st paragraph, end)
  24. ^ U.S. Policy: Jerusalem's Final Status must Be Negotiated
  25. ^ US fury as Israel approves 900 new housing units in Gilo settlement (Times, Nov. 18, 2009)
  26. ^ "Diplomatic construction", Jerusalem Post, published December 1, 2005.

[edit] External links

[edit] Jerusalem maps

B'Tselem - Maps: [2]

Jewish Virtual Library:

  • Greater Jerusalem: [5]

"The area known as 'Greater' Jerusalem usually refers to an approximately 100-square-mile (260 km2) space surrounding the Old City of Jerusalem. This area includes both West and East Jerusalem, including the adjacent neighborhoods outside of the municipal boundaries of the city. ... Regarding the route of Israel’s security fence in the Jerusalem area, there have been a few competing strategies: to reinforce the municipal boundaries of the city, to alter the demographics in Israel’s favor, and to permanently draw the lines for 'Greater' Jerusalem."

  • Metropolitan and Greater Jerusalem: [6]
  • Arab East Jerusalem with greater Jerusalem: [7].
  • Jerusalem municipal boundaries: [8]
  • 2000 Camp David Summit map. Israeli proposal for the division and expansion of Jerusalem: [9]

"The Israeli proposal included the following main points: 1. Jewish areas outside Jerusalem's municipal boundaries would be annexed to the city, including such population centers as Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and Gush Etzion. (Gush Etzion is a major settlement block just south of Jerusalem, and is not shown on the map)."

IRIS.org (Information Regarding Israel's Security).

Map Centre of OCHA oPt (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - occupied Palestinian territory): [11]

  • East Jerusalem - closure map. March 2007: [12].

Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA). Jerusalem maps section: [13]

  • Greater Jerusalem: [14] [15].
  • Jerusalem municipal boundaries: [16]
  • Old City and Holy/Historical Basin area: [17]. At the 2001 Taba Summit Israeli negotiators presented to the Palestinians the idea of creating a special international regime for the 'Holy Basin' -- an area including the Old City and some areas outside the walls including the Mount of Olives cemetery.

[edit] Other links

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs study on the Division of Jerusalem. Nadav Shagrai, "Jerusalem: The Dangers of Division. An Alternative to Separation from the Arab Neighborhoods" (2008): [18]

Palestine Center report on a briefing by Stephen Zunes. Lehman, Wendy. "The Evolution of U.S. Policy on Jerusalem: International Law versus the Rule of Force," (2001): [19]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem"