Jerusalem holy places: a final status issue that should not be postponed (original) (raw)

In this position paper I lay out the need to address Jerusalem's holy places in any future settlement of the Israeli-­‐Palestinian conflict. My thoughts were prompted by a session at Millbank House, Westminster, convened by Lord Stone of Blackheath, to provide feedback to a new peace initiative, spear-­‐headed by Meron Rappoport and Awni al-­‐Mashni, called Two States, One Homeland. The purpose of the meeting was to convene a variety of agents with different expertise who could evaluate and advise the project. My position paper reflects concerns I raised at the session with regard to what this initiative could do to help Israelis and Palestinians to build trust with regard to some of the most intractable issues. [For more information see http://blogs.bu.edu/mzank/2016/03/11/two-­‐states-­‐one-­‐homeland/\] At our meeting in London of March 9, 2016, one of the topics discussed in small groups was religion. How does religion fit into the TSOH scheme? How and at what stage should it be brought into the discussion? How can the status quo of the holy places be addressed without causing anxiety? Is there something TSOH can say or project about the religious aspects of the Israeli-­‐Palestinian conflict that is novel and can lead beyond the current impasse, which-­‐as was repeatedly stated at the meeting-­‐is driven, in part, by fear: fear of hidden intentions of the other party, a source of insurmountable distrust. The crucial question is therefore how to build trust in regard to the issue of the holy places. The answer is that TSOH needs to have a clear statement on intentions regarding holy places. How will Israelis and Palestinians handle mutually exclusive claims to sacred space and holy places? TSOH's statement on Jerusalem currently eludes this issue by invoking the possibility of an international regime for the holy places. Any future regime, including one involving members of the international community, requires mutually recognized principles on holy places between the principal members of the envisaged confederation as a basis for mediation of any and all differences and a mitigation of any conflict between the parties. Jerusalem is the crucial issue when it comes to religion and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It would be insufficient for TSOH to deal with questions of sovereignty, territorial redivision, policing, or the status of Jerusalem as a dual capital and a joint municipality without also addressing the holy places. As the TSOH initiative does with regard to the Land of Israel/Palestine as a whole, TSOH also has the potential to move the parties beyond the current impass with regard to the holy places by being honest about long-­‐term intentions and mindful of the facts on the ground.