|
|
|
||
|
Exiles Ready Themselves for Battle Over Jerusalem By Lana Nusseibeh (Reprinted from the September 5, 1999 issue of the Jordan Times, an English language daily in Amman, Jordan) Amman-- Sovereignty over Jerusalem, a recurring issue in the peace process must once again rear its long avoided head for a lasting and comprehensive peace to be made. The question of Jerusalem is a fervent one for Palestinians living in exile as demonstrated by recent activities of the Jerusalem forum, an organization founded in the wake of the long stagnation in the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is working in concert with other Jerusalem societies, particularly the society for the safeguarding of Jerusalem, headed by Taher Masri, a former Prime Minister. The Jerusalem forum is circulating a declaration to be signed by exiled Jerusalemites in and outside Jordan, and families from Jerusalem’s surrounding areas. “We, the Palestinian Arab people of Jerusalem, whether at home or in forced dispersal, believe it to be self-evident that our entitlement to return to Jerusalem, and its environs and, to restore our homes and properties therein is sacrosanct… we reiterate our full-fledged adherence to our historical, undisputed right to Jerusalem as an integral part of Palestine and…our attachment to our right of return to our holy city, to live there in dignity, freedom and peace with all its citizens,” states the declaration. To read the full declaration, follow this hyperlink. It highlights the side-stepping of Jerusalem in recent negotiations between the Palestinian National Authority and Israel. In terms of the peace process, Jerusalem seems buried, but not forgotten as Palestinian President Yasser Arafat last Thursday told U.S. congressmen that the only issue now causing divisions is the release of Palestinians from Israeli jails. However; many indications suggest that it is over the boundaries of the Old City Walls that Palestinians and Israeli will feud most vehemently. Arafat offered the following battle cry to a gathering of youths in Ramallah, “I hope that one day... you will raise the Palestinian flag on the walls of Jerusalem,” said the Palestinian president at the celebration of his 70th birthday. In opposition to this stance is Barak’s election pledge that Jerusalem will remain “united and under our rule forever, period.” But, in the turbulent state that is Middle East politics, “forever” must, out of necessity, be defined as a very short time. The impasse regarding this issue stems from the very nature of Jerusalem itself, in terms of its historical value and religious sacredness to both Palestinians and Jews. Its value to the Palestinians is highlighted by the declaration which has already obtained 7.000 signatures a number that is expected to at least quadruple. It has been sent to the United Nations, the Arab league and various Arab governments. The forum, headed by Jordan’s former foreign minister, Hazem Nusseibeh, is an explicitly non-political organization. Its message transcends the political inadequacies of the peace agreement for the Palestinians, to assert the claim of a people to a city contested for by many religious and political groups. In discussing the right of ex-Jerusalemites to return, the declaration touches on the most sensitive points of the peace process: the right of return and the refugee problem, the question of Jewish settlements, and ultimately the question of the sovereignty over Jerusalem itself. The declaration bases it’s argument for the Palestinian claim to Jerusalem on the illegality of its occupation, on international law, and on fundamental humanities rights such as the “inalienable right of every people...to self-determination over their soil.” This opinion is also shared by many of the less fortunate Palestinian exiles, the refugee living in camps since the occupation of 1948 and 1967. Those living in Al Hussein refugee camp, in the heart of Amman told the Jordan Times that they would only accept a return to their birthplace “nowhere else.” The majority of refugees in this camp agreed that all compensation in place of this right would be rejected. Abu Ali, a hardened street vendor at the camp and father of six , despite his poverty and resignation at the situation stated firmly that he would never accept compensation, for payment could not alleviate his desire to live once again in his birthplace and raise his children there. For his children however, the only reality they can remember is the shabby, overpopulated and poverty stricken streets of the Al Hussein camp, home to around 25,000 Palestinian refugees. The declaration echoes the concerns of the refugees regarding compensation and right of return, asserting that “our entitlement to our lands, properties and homes is an entitlement which cannot be overlooked, circumscribed or lapse by any deceptive offers of compensation.” In practical terms, the declaration outlines a framework for the Palestinians within which the present day peace negotiations can function. The position of Jerusalemites as a majority, both past residents now living in exile and those who remained, is that a settlement must be based on a recognition of the rights of both peoples, not one, to the city of Jerusalem. This stance leaves a wide leeway for a partition or joint control of Jerusalem that gives, politically, both the Israeli and the Palestinians equal rights to the city, and in a religious context, offers the three monotheistic faiths equal access to their sacred places. According to the declaration, the mutual rights of both peoples’ must be recognized by the international community and enforced by it. Yet despite the confident tone of the declaration to the validity of Palestinian rights in Jerusalem, the issue lies on many critical fault lines that may crack and split in the upcoming weeks of negotiations. Heightening the difficulties ahead are the actions of Israel since its occupation of Arab east Jerusalem in 1967. The declaration explicitly refutes the legitimacy of Israeli policy since ’67 of expropriation, building of Jewish settlements and application of discriminatory land and building laws. Even at this critical juncture in the peace talks, Israel has begun a construction of settlement units in a new Jewish settlement on the outskirts of Arab east Jerusalem. This so-called “Judaisation” of Jerusalem as a policy of the Israeli government has long been criticized by the PNA, and by the international community. As stated in the declaration, according to international law, Israel’s demographic and architectural imposition, aimed at altering the nature of the city are illegal because of the inevitable affect on partition agreements. The hard concrete of the settlements around and in Jerusalem serve as a foundation for Barak’s election pledge that Israel will never relinquish Jerusalem, yet hopefully, as suggested by Israel’s recent commitments towards a real peace, one that can be re-compromised in the upcoming weeks. As the declaration indicates, the desire of a majority of Palestinians is to procure a settlement which accords them their legal and moral rights as a people, and finally, as an incipient state. The status of Jerusalem should thus be recognized as a critical paradigm for whether the final deal stands or falls.
September 19, 1999
|
