- 5 كانون أول 2024
- مقابلة خاصة
By: Intisar ALQSAR
Jerusalem’s status under international law remains a cornerstone of the Palestinian cause and a central issue in Israel's occupation. Since the 1948 Nakba, Israel, supported by Western powers and the absent of substantial Arab actions, has systematically sought to assert de facto control over the city, subverting international frameworks. This began with the seizure of West Jerusalem and escalated following the 1967 occupation of East Jerusalem. Over time, Israel has reshaped the international narrative to focus solely on East Jerusalem as occupied territory, obscuring the broader legal and historical implications.
Jerusalem under international law: from partition to occupation
In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 proposed the partition of Palestine into separate states, with Jerusalem designated as a corpus separatum under international administration. This unique arrangement aimed to preserve the city’s religious and cultural heritage as a shared space for all faiths.
During the 1948 war, Israeli forces occupied West Jerusalem, forcibly expelling over 60,000 Palestinians and erasing entire neighbourhoods, in clear violation of the UN’s vision. Western complicity normalized Israel’s claims over West Jerusalem, effectively dismantling the principle of international administration.
In 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem, annexing it and declaring the entire city its "eternal and undivided" capital. This act flagrantly violated international law, including UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal from occupied territories. Yet Israel’s strategic manipulation of the narrative directed international attention solely to East Jerusalem, leaving its unlawful actions in West Jerusalem largely unchallenged.
Israeli actions to change the status quo
Israel’s policies in Jerusalem aim to consolidate its control and diminish the Palestinian presence, undermining the city’s legal status and the rights of its Palestinian residents. Key measures include:
Settlement expansion: Since 1967, Israel has expanded illegal settlements in and around East Jerusalem, encircling Palestinian neighbourhoods and fragmenting Palestinian territorial contiguity. These settlements, which violate international law, hinder the potential establishment of East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state.
House demolitions and displacements: Israeli authorities frequently demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, citing a lack of building permits—permits that are nearly impossible for Palestinians to obtain. These demolitions, coupled with forced evictions, displace Palestinian families and create a coercive environment, pressuring them to leave the city.
Revocation of residency rights: Palestinians in East Jerusalem are granted "permanent residency" status rather than citizenship, leaving them vulnerable to residency revocation under arbitrary conditions. Thousands have lost their residency rights since 1967, severing their connection to their city.
Altering religious and cultural sites: Israeli actions in and around religious and cultural sites have heightened tensions, impacting both Muslim and Christian communities. Attempts to alter the status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, including increased incursions by settlers under police protection and archaeological excavations near the site, have been a flashpoint. Christian communities have similarly faced restrictions on worship and encroachments on church properties, exacerbating insecurity and contributing to the dwindling Christian population in Jerusalem.
Legal and administrative measures: Laws such as the 2018 Nation-State Law enshrine Jewish supremacy and further marginalise Palestinians in Jerusalem. These measures, alongside annexation policies, aim to entrench Israeli control over the city and permanently alter its character.
International response: weaknesses and failures
The international community has consistently reaffirmed that Jerusalem’s status must be resolved through negotiations, with unilateral actions deemed illegal. Numerous UN resolutions condemn Israeli policies, yet enforcement mechanisms remain absent.
The United States’ recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017 emboldened Israeli policies and undermined international consensus, deepening Palestinian grievances and eroding trust in the global system.
This selective approach normalizes Israel's control over West Jerusalem while focusing on East Jerusalem as a symbolic capital for Palestinians. It disregards the broader context of Palestinian dispossession, fragmenting the narrative and weakening efforts for a just resolution.
Arab role, a shared responsibility
Despite the public support, by media and issuing statements, the role of Arab regimes, particularly Jordan, in the Jerusalem issue has been marked by a gradual abandonment of the Palestinian cause in exchange for political and economic gains. Jordan's historical connection to Jerusalem, particularly its custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites, is undeniable. However, the 1994 peace treaty with Israel, followed by the 1988 renouncement of the West Bank, represents a profound shift that weakened Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. While Jordan continues to assert its role as the guardian of Jerusalem’s religious sites, its actions are constrained by the broader Arab world’s changing stance and the pressure of international powers, notably the USA. Jordan’s increasingly pragmatic approach to Israel, shaped by economic necessity and security concerns, has eroded its ability to meaningfully resist Israeli policies on the ground.
Qatar, which has long pursued a more pragmatic stance on Israel, was the first Arab country to host an Israeli Prime Minister when Shimon Peres visited in 1996 and opening commercial office in Tel Aviv, marking a significant step in engaging with Israel diplomatically and economically, well before the Abraham Accords. This relationship, with Aljazeera TV taking the lead in hosting Israeli officials, though more discreet than the later formalized peace agreements, has played an essential role in shifting the broader Arab world’s position on Israel. Qatar’s actions signalled a willingness to engage with Israel, motivated by strategic economic interests and diplomatic pragmatism, which mirrored a broader trend of growing US influence in the region.
The broader Arab world, historically united in its opposition to Israeli occupation, has witnessed a dangerous normalization of relations with Israel, largely driven by US influence. The peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and Qatar’s early engagement with Israel set precedents that were further expanded under the Abraham Accords, with the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco following suit. This normalization has not only undermined Palestinian solidarity but has also contributed to the fragmentation of the Arab world’s position on Jerusalem. Arab regimes, many of which have received substantial US military and financial aid, have prioritized their own political and economic stability over the defence of Palestinian rights. The US, with its unwavering support for Israel, has played a critical role in enabling this shift, pressuring Arab states to comply with its geopolitical agenda while sidelining Palestinian aspirations. These actions, coupled with the Arab states’ failure to hold Israel accountable for its illegal activities in Jerusalem, reflect a broader abandonment of Arab solidarity and a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
Correcting the narrative and the path forward
Resolving the status of Jerusalem requires adherence to international law and the restoration of its historical and legal context. A comprehensive approach includes:
Reframing the legal narrative: The international community must reaffirm that Jerusalem’s entire status, including West Jerusalem, remains unresolved under international law. Advocacy must challenge efforts to normalise Israel’s de facto control over West Jerusalem and ensure equal scrutiny of actions in both parts of the city.
Ensuring accountability: International bodies must apply diplomatic and legal pressure to hold Israel accountable for violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, including settlement expansion, house demolitions, and forced displacements.
Supporting Palestinian rights: Advocates must uphold the right of Palestinians to self-determination. Additionally, the rights of Palestinians displaced from West Jerusalem in 1948 must be addressed, reaffirming their right to return and reclaim property.
Strengthening international advocacy: Civil society, academics, and the media must expose the broader legal and historical context of Jerusalem’s status. Efforts should focus on educating the public and challenging narratives that obscure or normalise Israel’s actions. Advocacy must emphasise the city’s multi-religious and multicultural character, safeguarding its role as a shared space for Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.
Preserving Jerusalem’s identity: A critical issue in the international discourse is the emphasis on East Jerusalem as the future capital of a Palestinian state, often framed as part of a two-state solution. While this may appear pragmatic, it risks further entrenching divisions imposed by Israel's actions since 1948. By focusing solely on East Jerusalem, the international community effectively legitimises Israel’s illegal annexation of West Jerusalem and obscures the broader dispossession of Palestinians.
This selective approach normalises Israel's control over West Jerusalem while offering Palestinians symbolic recognition in the eastern part of the city. It undermines efforts to restore Jerusalem’s unified identity and disregards the original vision of the city as an internationally administered space under UN General Assembly Resolution 181.
To address this, the international community must reaffirm the principles of international law, acknowledge the full scope of Palestinian dispossession, and resist the normalisation of annexation. Western governments must be held accountable for policies that tacitly support Israel’s annexation efforts in both West and East Jerusalem. Diplomatic efforts must demand a comprehensive solution based on justice and equality, ensuring that Jerusalem remains a city for all its residents.